Eugenie and Jack: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread

[Lumutqueen]

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 .

I know he's not a royal, I simply confirmed a point that RoyalHighness seemed unsure on.

 

[Biri]

Put Peter is also a grandchild of the Queen (moreover, the firstborn one).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wonder if anyone realizes here that we've spent far more time talking about the cost of a short carriage ride through Windsor than the actual carriage ride is going to take. How long will things be "disrupted"? 20-30 minutes?

People are going to show up in Windsor on the wedding day most likely carriage ride or no carriage ride most likely. With this line of thinking, I'm inclined to believe that the security would be put into place even if there wasn't a carriage ride to begin with.

Why would people turn up if there was nothing to see?

If the wedding was confined to the ground of the castle there would be no need for security around the town as there would be no people there to see when there would be nothing happening.

On Garter Day there was no more police in the town than on other days from what I could see as there was nothing for people in the town to see. There were about 5000 people in the grounds to watch and as we left I saw hardly anyone even go into the local shops as we hotfooted it to the station to get on the train (of course some people would have gone into the shops as I did myself - I said to one of the local shopkeepers that they must benefit from such days and he said that Garter Day was the slowest day in the year as no tourists came and those that went to the Garter Ceremony didn't shop in the town - they arrived, queued, went into the castle, maybe bought a souvenir on the Windsor Castle shops and left - which was the same thing I was told by those who were regulars at the Garter ceremony - bring their lunches from home and not buy anything locally).

Having the carriage ride through the streets will help the local businesses as people will shop - maybe.

 

[Spheno]

Why would people turn up if there was nothing to see?

Why did people turn up to see prince Louis christening? There was nothing to see.

On Garter Day there was no more police in the town than on other days from what I could see as there was nothing for people in the town to see.

How did you recognize non-uniformed security officers?
How did you evaluate level of the area's monitoring via electronic security systems?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why did people turn up to see prince Louis christening? There was nothing to see.

There was - the royal family were visible. When events are inside the grounds of Windsor Castle only the only those inside the grounds can see the royals not those outside in the streets of Windsor.

How did you recognize non-uniformed security officers?
How did you evaluate level of the area's monitoring via electronic security systems?

I obviously wasn't referring to them. They would have been there of course. It is sometimes also easy to spot them - if you know what you are looking for such as a telltale bulge hiding a weapon and the earwigs allowing communication that isn't via a mobile.

I was obviously referring to the visible security which was no higher at the Garter Ceremony than on a normal day visiting the castle - full security check at airport level to enter the grounds in the first place with uniformed cops wandering around whereas at the Garter Ceremony they were on the roads only and not on the grass areas where the viewers were.

If there is no chance of seeing a royal people want wait around in the streets outside the castle - at St James' the entrance to the Chapel Royal is visible from the streets so people can gather to see the royals attending the christening. At the Garter Ceremony there are no crowds in the streets outside Windsor as there is nothing to see as everything takes place out of the line of sight of those outside the castle.

 

[tommy100]

I suspect the costs will be much less for this wedding than M&H. This is not a major national event so policing will be less. They will of course protect senior royals and protect the public but the crowds will not be anywhere near as big as they were for M&H wedding so that means less to police and the route is different - Meghan drove all the way into Windsor from her hotel.
Zara and Mike's wedding cost the police in Edinburgh around £400,000 so I don't see why this would be massively more, even with a carriage ride it can be ten times as much.

 

[Spheno]

There was - the royal family were visible. When events are inside the grounds of Windsor Castle only the only those inside the grounds can see the royals not those outside in the streets of Windsor.

There will be a lot of royal arrivals: royals from London, Eugenie and Andrew from Royal Lodge, etc. So it will be the same situation.

 

[Madame Verseau]

There are still gripes about the cost of security for the wedding and the cost is due to Andrew

https://m.thechronicle.com.au/news/heres-how-much-security-for-princess-eugenies-wedd/3499226/

 

[O-H Anglophile]

There are still gripes about the cost of security for the wedding and the cost is due to Andrew

https://m.thechronicle.com.au/news/heres-how-much-security-for-princess-eugenies-wedd/3499226/

Andrew can not dictate what security measures are undertaken so that part is a bunch of nonsense. And Eugenie and Jack should be able to invite whomever they’d like even if those people are celebrities that causes security to be heightened.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Do you think the Royal mint will release a coin for the wedding?

 

[Mbruno]

Do you think the Royal mint will release a coin for the wedding?

No, I don’t.

 

[Denville]

Andrew can not dictate what security measures are undertaken so that part is a bunch of nonsense. And Eugenie and Jack should be able to invite whomever they’d like even if those people are celebrities that causes security to be heightened.

Then Andrew could pay for extra security..

 

[Marengo]

Sure, you and I could also offer to pay the costs. Or anybody else. But it is the state's responsibility to secure both public events as members of the royal family. Why members are so focused on the state foregoing their responsibilities remains a mystery to me. And why it is only an issue at this wedding and not at previous British (semi-)royal weddings is another one.

 

[Denville]

Sure, you and I could also offer to pay the costs. Or anybody else. But it is the state's responsibility to secure both public events as members of the royal family. Why members are so focused on the state foregoing their responsibilities remains a mystery to me. And why it is only an issue at this wedding and not at previous British (semi-)royal weddings is another one.

Because we have just had one medium sized royal wedding, and that's IMO enough. Why on earth should I offer to pay for Andrew's daughters' wedding security?

 

[Rudolph]

The wedding will have come and gone and people will be saying Andrew should pay security.

It’s the State’s responsibility and the state will pay.

This week’s Hello Canada has a countdown to the royal wedding special and the Mayor of Windsor is interviewed.

He says they’re looking very much forward to it and there’s already a buzz in the community.

 

[Denville]

Only because we the tax payers have no choice..

 

[Dman]

I’d like to see the royal YouTube used to broadcast the wedding.

 

[Denville]

Its not a public wedding.

 

[QueenEmpath]

I saw the news about the wedding. Some people say that the wedding isn't hyped up like Harry's cause It's a Princess' wedding, not a prince'. I thought does the gender of the person getting married still matters in The Royal family where sons are preferred over daughters?

 

[Dman]

Its not a public wedding.

Well, I think they’re in discussions with the media on coverage. It would be beautiful for them to use the YouTube channel for coverage.

 

[Heavs]

Because we have just had one medium sized royal wedding, and that's IMO enough. Why on earth should I offer to pay for Andrew's daughters' wedding security?

Because she's also a granddaughter of the Queen, currently 9th in line to the throne? She's getting a similar wedding to PP&AK and E&S. No matter now many people try to make out that the York sisters are "Royal hangers on", they aren't, even if they aren't working royals (full time). Eugenie has patronages and causes she has a personal stake in and she is passionate about.

Seriously, Andrew couldn't dictate anything that HM wouldn't sign off on for the wedding. It's not as if she demanded the Abbey based on a "qualifying connection".

 

[Osipi]

I saw the news about the wedding. Some people say that the wedding isn't hyped up like Harry's cause It's a Princess' wedding, not a prince'. I thought does the gender of the person getting married still matters in The Royal family where sons are preferred over daughters?

Actually it has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Prince Harry's wedding was more hyped up and more of a public event because basically, Harry is a more senior royal than Eugenie is as his father is next in line to be monarch. Harry also is a full fledged working royal for the family's "Firm".

Eugenie is not a senior royal nor does she work for the "Firm" and is therefore considered more of a private citizen.

Both Harry and Eugenie are equal though in that they are both grandchildren of the Queen.

 

[Pranter]

Only because we the tax payers have no choice..

Unfortunately all taxpayers world wide have little choice most of the time as to how their taxes are used. We are going to pay here for presidents to take their vacations and their security for they and their family etc no matter who they are or what party they are in.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

So, really looking at this logically, the taxpayers would pay the same amount that's doled out by the government for security whether or not this royal wedding happened. Its not like the extra security for Eugenie and Jack's wedding is going to increase the amount of taxes a person pays. Right?

 

[tommy100]

Maybe the could sell the rights to Hello or Ok like Peter Phillips did but give the money to pay for security. Being very tongue in cheek of course but actually maybe they should.

Of course the state will pay for security, I personally think it will be on a lower level than for Harry and Meghans wedding and not cost as much in security. Its poor timing in some ways as M&H's wedding is so fresh in everyones mind and he is higher up the line of succession so people are wondering why the State should also pay for Eugenie's when she is, to all intensive purposes a private individual. Had Eugenie's wedding been next year or even the year after people wouldn't be as hyped up at the cost.

As much as there were comments over the cost of Zara's wedding the fact it seemed more low-key - she wore an off the rack gown for example - and involved the bare minimum public exposure combined with Zara being less known yet more popular meant the public were't as bothered by it.

To me they made a mistake in including a carriage ride, it makes it appear more ostentatious, more regal and public than it needs to be, thats my opinion.

 

[ACO]

Chris Ship from ITV has a new royal series called "Royal Rota" where they discuss many topics and with various correspondents. Today was the premiere and the Yorks were a topic.

One correspondent is from Australia and explained they were not airing it live but were sending some reporters over to cover it. Chris says there is now talks to allow some cameras inside? So maybe we might get some footage to air later.

Here is it. Starts around 23 mins (should play right at the point).

 

[Madame Verseau]

It sounds like individual networks are going to make the decisions if it's smart cost wise to televise the wedding, particularly if interest is low. I can people getting upset - two royal weddings on a grand scale five months apart.

 

[Kataryn]

Because we have just had one medium sized royal wedding, and that's IMO enough. Why on earth should I offer to pay for Andrew's daughters' wedding security?

IMHO they will use money brought in from the Crown Estate to pay for it. The Crown Estate used to belong 100% to the monarch and his family, but was given to the government, so the people did not have to pay so much taxtes. The queen and her family only get about 20% of the annual revenue, the rest goes to the government. Considering how much that is constantly, spending money on security for a wedding where the bride and groom are not responsible for the risk they are under is the least the government can do.

So no taypayer has to pay anything for that wedding, they just don't get as much finacial support from the Crown as they get normally.

 

[tommy100]

I doubt that would happen as it would set a precedence for other royal events in the future. The current norm is that security costs are met by the relevant police force or the MetPolice (protection officers etc) with the local council paying for any other indirect security costs.

 

[Zaira]

Chris Ship from ITV has a new royal series called "Royal Rota" where they discuss many topics and with various correspondents. Today was the premiere and the Yorks were a topic.

One correspondent is from Australia and explained they were not airing it live but were sending some reporters over to cover it. Chris says there is now talks to allow some cameras inside? So maybe we might get some footage to air later.

Here is it. Starts around 23 mins (should play right at the point).

Isn't that what they did for Edward and Sophie? No live broadcast, but some special clips later?

I am sure we will see some foreign correspondents, but it won't be the hysteria that surrounded the Sussex and Cambridge weddings, which is probably a good thing. I love the Sussex couple but the wedding coverage and mania that lasted MONTHS nearly did me in. There is none of that with this wedding, thankfully.