Princess Eugenie is expecting her first child


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous:

I agree that Beatrice's pregnancy announcement will be more complicated, given that Edoardo is an "Italian Count" and has step-parents

Going back to Meghan's pregnancy announcement by the Palace, Harry and Meghan's parents nor the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were mentioned at all.

@KensingtonRoyal · Oct 15, 2018
Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Sussex is expecting a baby in the Spring of 2019.
6:39 PM · Oct 15, 2018·Twitter for iPhone

@KensingtonRoyal · Oct 15, 2018
Their Royal Highnesses have appreciated all of the support they have received from people around the world since their wedding in May and are delighted to be able to share this happy news with the public.
6:40 PM · Oct 15, 2018·Twitter for iPhone​
https://twitter.com/x/status/1051739344887848960

The Royal Family @RoyalFamily
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have today announced that The Duchess of Sussex is expecting a baby due in Spring: https://bit.ly/2RR1pt4
7:02 PM · Oct 15, 2018·Twitter Web Client​
https://twitter.com/x/status/1051745170457317376

The link leads to the Royal.uk website with the announcement: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expecting a baby. It has the same statement as the Kensington Palace's announcement on twitter
https://www.royal.uk/duke-and-duchess-sussex-are-expecting-baby

I agree that these differences and variation depends on how the royal couple and their families (or even Palace officials) want the statement to be announced.
 
I also don't see a reason why Jack (and Eugenie) would want his children to have a different surname than Brooksbank.

As others have said, they are rather traditional and he is from a distinguished family, so anything else would seem unlikely.
 
Somebody said:
I also don't see a reason why Jack (and Eugenie) would want his children to have a different surname than Brooksbank.

As others have said, they are rather traditional and he is from a distinguished family, so anything else would seem unlikely.
Click to expand...

Once again, I fully expect that the child's surname will be Brooksbank, and I believe I stated that clearly in each of my previous posts.

I did not see any reason why Jack and Eugenie would want their wedding to be held in a town hall rather than a church (and they did wed in church), but the media did not report the plans for a church wedding as a fact until it was confirmed by the palace. That was the issue on which I was commenting.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
I did not see any reason why Jack and Eugenie would want their wedding to be held in a town hall rather than a church (and they did wed in church), but the media did not report the plans for a church wedding as a fact until it was confirmed by the palace. That was the issue on which I was commenting.
Click to expand...

It may not have been reported as a fact but I saw a lot more discussion of "which church?" with St. George's coming in as the firm favourite than any speculation about a registrar's office or beach wedding on Mustique or wherever. Bea had more discussion as she took longer to announce where and when and of course the Andrew issue. Plus Italian castle fantasies of some reporters.

I've had a dig around, and I can't see anyone who said "just Miss/Master Brooksbank" claiming to have checked with the palace or royal sources. Even the BBC couched it in terms of "as things stand but could change if the Queen grants Jack a title". But that's talking titles not surnames and the use of M-W. Though even that slight equivocation would seem to suggest they haven't gone to a source who said "no title, just Brooksbank" definitively.

To be honest I think most are truly just assuming that a married couple will give their child their father's surname and haven't considered anything else, especially as there's no royal family precedent and no reason to suspect otherwise. But the thing to do would be to tweet or email Emily Nash or anyone else who said "just Brooksbank" and ask why they're stating it like fact.
 
Last edited:
Heavs said:
I've had a dig around, and I can't see anyone who said "just Miss/Master Brooksbank" claiming to have checked with the palace or royal sources. Even the BBC couched it in terms of "as things stand but could change if the Queen grants Jack a title". But that's talking titles not surnames and the use of M-W. Though even that slight equivocation would seem to suggest they haven't gone to a source who said "no title, just Brooksbank" definitively.

To be honest I think most are truly just assuming that a married couple will give their child their father's surname and haven't considered anything else, especially as there's no royal family precedent and no reason to suspect otherwise. But the thing to do would be to tweet or email Emily Nash or anyone else who said "just Brooksbank" and ask why they're stating it like fact.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

That slight equivocation from the media outlets over the child being untitled was a reason I wondered about the absence of similar "as things stand" phrasings regarding the child's name. At the moment, a title other than Master/Miss and a surname other than Brooksbank are both enormously unlikely: I think we and the media can all agree on that. But I personally would have thought that a title would be the more unthinkable out of the two unlikely possibilities, whereas the media seem to believe it is the other way around.

That is not a criticism of the media; I was only wondering why they would perceive it in those terms, and I appreciate the answers from this thread.
 
If Princess Eugenie and Jack have a son, I see nothing wrong with the use of Master Brooksbank, This may be the 21st century. However, if Master has been good to use all these previous generations, the title is good and respectful for the present time.
 
I am over the moon for Eugenie and Jack. I also can imagen Sarah as a good Grandmother very caring and loving. I just can't imagen Andrew pushing his grandchild in a pram through the park, I would say he is to stiff he may not like to show feelings or is unable too. Maybe it is different in his own home, without cameras. But happy for everyone.
 
I think it could be a nice birthday surprise for Prince Philip if Baby Brooksbank would be christened at his 100th birthday.
 
REAL COUNTESS said:
I am over the moon for Eugenie and Jack. I also can imagen Sarah as a good Grandmother very caring and loving. I just can't imagen Andrew pushing his grandchild in a pram through the park, I would say he is to stiff he may not like to show feelings or is unable too. Maybe it is different in his own home, without cameras. But happy for everyone.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of pictures of Andrew with his daughters when they were young where he was carrying them on his shoulders, etc. especially at the Royal Windsor Horse Show. His daughters adore him and he they. I can see him as a very doting grandpapa.
 
I can't see that the baby will be anything other than Master/Miss Brooksbank. I'm surprised that the media have even mentioned it. Peter and Zara haven't got titles and don't use "Mountbatten-Windsor", and they're the Queen's grandchildren, not great-grandchildren. And Prince Charles has made it clear that he wants a "slimmed-down" monarchy.


Most children in the UK take their father's surname, even if the parents aren't married and especially if they are married. A few use hyphenated names, but not many.


"Early 2021" suggests January or February ... but it'd be a bit late to announce it if she was already 5 months along, so I'm guessing mid to late February.
 
Last edited:
This is a great news and most waited i guess
Congratulations to the happy parents
 
Alison H said:
I can't see that the baby will be anything other than Master/Miss Brooksbank. I'm surprised that the media have even mentioned it. Peter and Zara haven't got titles and don't use "Mountbatten-Windsor", and they're the Queen's grandchildren, not great-grandchildren. And Prince Charles has made it clear that he wants a "slimmed-down" monarchy.
Click to expand...

That is one reason why it surprises me that not only the media, but also the anonymous sources speaking to the press on behalf of the parents to be, are treating a title as more of a possibility than a nontraditional surname. I suppose it could be that the idea of "refusing" a title is a more appealing story than "refusing" a surname.
 
This is my opinion....I believe that Mom and Dad would like their children to grow up without any title. I believe The Duke and Duchess of York want grand kids to have titles.
 
I think that if the children were supposed to have titles, that the parents would have got one upon their marriage.
 
:previous:
By the convention of "granting title to the parents, more specifically to the father", it would not surprised me that The Duke of York might want Jack to be given an Earldom in order for their children (Baby Brooksbank and future siblings) to have titles. There is also the possibility that The Duke of York did not want Jack to have a title, nor do his grandchildren. Of course, these are just rumours and speculations, especially from a Daily Mail article that stated
"A representative for the Yorks tells me that Jack, 32, will not be granted the vacant title Earl of Northallerton – as has been whispered in recent weeks – meaning the Queen’s granddaughter will be known as HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank."​
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...s-fiance-Jack-Brooksbank-remain-commoner.html
P.s. Thank you Tatiana Maria for the Daily Mail link from the Jack Brooksbank's title thread (From Post #325)

If Jack did take Earl of Northallerton (which is highly unlikely for Jack to be gifted a title), their daughters will be styled Lady [First Name] Brooksbank, the eldest son would be styled as [First Name], [Subsidiary title], while the younger sons would be The Hon. [First Name] Brooksbank. Eugenie's full title would become (after marriage) Princess Eugenie, Countess of Northallerton, rather than Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

I do think Eugenie and Jack already knew that their children will not have titles and the Daily Mail article just want to stir up trouble by generating headlines.
 
AC21091968 said:
:previous:

I do think Eugenie and Jack already knew that their children will not have titles and the Daily Mail article just want to stir up trouble by generating headlines.
Click to expand...
This. :previous: The Daily Mail always portrays the Duke and Duchess of York as arrogant and entitled (not always without reason I admit), and by extension Beatrice and Eugenie too. None of the Yorks would ever have expected that the Princesses' husbands and children would be given "new" titles. The Fail is just stirring up trouble, as usual - just like all those "holidays" the girls took or that they didn't have jobs. And the DM still only uses pictures of Beatrice that show her eyes at their widest or both the girls when the wind or just walking pull their dresses in un-flattering ways.
 
Last edited:
I was surprised Eugenie's children would be allowed titles in the first place, so am not surprised that she has declined them.
 
I don't believe there was ever any question that Baby Brooksbank was getting a title either now when they're on their way or when they were hypothetical, or that Jack was ever seriously in contention for "Earl of Northallerton" - a title that came out of nowhere - no matter what the media says.



Apart from anything else, in a climate where there are calls for the DOY to loose his titles (probably also not happening unless ever tried and convicted) they aren't going to stir that pot by "rewarding" him/his son in law an Earldom or annoucing any special titles for the children.


I believe that "sources" discussing the possibility of theoretical titles when asked about it, rather than surnames when it comes to the baby is because everyone is treating it as given that the only way the baby would be something other than Miss/Master Brooksbank is if there was a title involved ie no one is thinking there's even the vaguest probability of M-W-B because there's no reason to as the parents are married and from traditional families.



It did come up when they Phillips/Tindalls were born and was dismissed then in a similar manner because it's standard royal gossip.
 
AC21091968 said:
I do think Eugenie and Jack already knew that their children will not have titles and the Daily Mail article just want to stir up trouble by generating headlines.
Click to expand...

LauraS3514 said:
This. :previous: The Daily Mail always portrays the Duke and Duchess of York as arrogant and entitled (not always without reason I admit), and by extension Beatrice and Eugenie too. None of the Yorks would ever have expected that the Princesses' husbands and children would be given "new" titles. The Fail is just stirring up trouble, as usual - just like all those "holidays" the girls took or that they didn't have jobs. And the DM still only uses pictures of Beatrice that show her eyes at their widest or both the girls when the wind or just walking pull their dresses in un-flattering ways.
Click to expand...

As stated in the article, a piece in Vanity Fair was the source of the story.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/09/royal-baby-princess-eugenie-jack-brooksbank-plans

In my opinion, the piece flatteringly represents Princess Eugenie and Jack as down to earth and modest for allegedly declining titles for Jack and their children.

This article from the Telegraph is quite similar.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...rland-beatrice-eugenie-embracing-family-life/



Heavs said:
Apart from anything else, in a climate where there are calls for the DOY to loose his titles (probably also not happening unless ever tried and convicted) they aren't going to stir that pot by "rewarding" him/his son in law an Earldom or annoucing any special titles for the children.

I believe that "sources" discussing the possibility of theoretical titles when asked about it, rather than surnames when it comes to the baby is because everyone is treating it as given that the only way the baby would be something other than Miss/Master Brooksbank is if there was a title involved ie no one is thinking there's even the vaguest probability of M-W-B because there's no reason to as the parents are married and from traditional families.

It did come up when they Phillips/Tindalls were born and was dismissed then in a similar manner because it's standard royal gossip.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. With apologies for repeating myself, I still am not fully clear on why British royal gossips think there is a higher (however vague) probability of a title than a non-traditional surname. As you pointed out, a title may be unfavorably perceived as a "reward", which would not apply to a surname (or would it?). At the same time, the "tradition" consideration would apply to both titles and surnames.
 
HereditaryPrincess said:
I was surprised Eugenie's children would be allowed titles in the first place, so am not surprised that she has declined them.
Click to expand...

I must have missed something. Eugenie's children were offered titles but Eugenie declined them? Who offered her the titles and by what means? As she cannot pass on any titles because she doesn't have something to pass on and Jack is untitled (although in line to a baronetcy as will any sons they may have).
 
Somebody said:
I must have missed something. Eugenie's children were offered titles but Eugenie declined them? Who offered her the titles and by what means? As she cannot pass on any titles because she doesn't have something to pass on and Jack is untitled (although in line to a baronetcy as will any sons they may have).
Click to expand...

I believe they were replying to a Daily Mail article (post #72) based upon this story:

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/09/royal-baby-princess-eugenie-jack-brooksbank-plans
 
The daily mail likes to make up news stories. No shocker there.

Stems from the whole Anne and how she didn’t want a title for her kids. But like Anne it’s a foregone conclusion. Eugenies kids were never going to be given their own title. It would have been jack or even Eugenie if the queen decided to modernize who would have been given the title. And it would have been done at their wedding. Since Jack was never given a title it’s never been a question his kids would not have one either.

Maybe Eugenie and jack were offered a title at their wedding and turned it down. But this story is just another attempt at DM to make a story.

The only nice thing about this one is the couple comes off looking good and grounded. A rare event.
 
Why would they be offered atitle for Jack? Anne was apparnetly against the idea in the 1970s, and its now 2020....
 
Denville said:
Why would they be offered atitle for Jack? Anne was apparnetly against the idea in the 1970s, and its now 2020....
Click to expand...

Lets face it. Royal news has pretty much been at a standstill due to the pandemic. There has to be stories to rile up the general public and this one kind of fits that bill. Gives those that comment on their stories an outlet to whine and moan about things totally made up for that purpose. ;)

If they ain't misbehaving, there's gotta be a way to make it seem there's conflict somewhere. Human nature thrives on misbehaving and discord. As its known in my family, its getting their Irish up. :D
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
Lets face it. Royal news has pretty much been at a standstill due to the pandemic. There has to be stories to rile up the general public and this one kind of fits that bill. Gives those that comment on their stories an outlet to whine and moan about things totally made up for that purpose. ;)

If they ain't misbehaving, there's gotta be a way to make it seem there's conflict somewhere. Human nature thrives on misbehaving and discord. As its known in my family, its getting their Irish up. :D
Click to expand...

the general public in the UK dont give 2 hoots. And on this forum, there was discussion of Jack getting a title for like 2 months before the wedding... surely ti was all thrashed out then
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Princess Eugenie & Jack Brooksbank are expecting their second child in 2023
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
SLV
SLV
Blog Real
Princess Alexandra and Nicolas Bagory are expecting their first child
Replies
13
Views
2K
Cornwall
C
iceflower
Crown Prince Hussein and Princess Rajwa are expecting their first child: Summer 2024
Replies
14
Views
2K
Biri
B
iceflower
Gender & Names for Crown Prince Hussein and Princess Rajwa's first child 2024
Replies
13
Views
1K
maria-olivia
maria-olivia
P
Félix and Claire Expecting Third Child
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
Berkshire
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom