The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   Princess Eugenie is expecting her first child (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/princess-eugenie-is-expecting-her-first-child-47930.html)

principessa 09-25-2020 04:32 AM

Princess Eugenie is expecting her first child
 
Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank are expecting their first child.

The birth is expected in early 2021.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/TheBritishM...58981907456947

Heavs 09-25-2020 04:35 AM

Oh that's lovely.

I thought she might be from some pictures at Balmoral.

muriel 09-25-2020 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by principessa (Post 2344339)
Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank are expecting their first child.

The birth is expected in early 2021.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/TheBritishM...58981907456947

Many congratulations to the couple, and all good wishes for a safe pregnany and birth!

evolvingdoors 09-25-2020 04:35 AM

I don't usually post here, but congratulation!

Baby Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie and Mr Jack Brooksbank are very pleased to announce that they are expecting a baby in early 2021.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/stat...634340352?s=20


I thought she looked pregnant in those pictures from a few days ago. she managed to maintain her regular weight throughout most of the quarantine so it was obvious a baby announcement is on the way.

Early 2021 - i'm guessing a late January baby.

Countessmeout 09-25-2020 04:37 AM

Was so excited to see this before I went to bed. :flowers:

Thrilled for the couple, and both their families. Happy news after a rough year for both families. I am sure both sets of future grandparents are thrilled.

eya 09-25-2020 04:37 AM

Happy news!!!! Congratulations to the couple!!!!!

Princess Eugenie:

'Jack and I are so excited for early 2021....����'

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFjXPhpFPpJ/

Countessmeout 09-25-2020 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eya (Post 2344344)
Happy news!!!! Congratulations to the couple!!!!!

Princess Eugenie:

'Jack and I are so excited for early 2021....����'

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFjXPhpFPpJ/

The little bear slippers are so adorable. ;):tongue:

Elektra 09-25-2020 04:54 AM

Great news :flowers: Congratulations to the family !

Sancia 09-25-2020 05:05 AM

Such great news ! I thought Eugenie may be pregnant, and I am thrilled for the couple. Congratulations to them !

suztav 09-25-2020 05:14 AM

Wonderful news!

kathl29 09-25-2020 05:31 AM

Fantastic news

Alison H 09-25-2020 05:36 AM

Isn't it lovely to hear some good news?

Claire 09-25-2020 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2344358)
Isn't it lovely to hear some good news?

Second that . Best Wishes to the Happy Couple and little one.

ThistleDoNicely 09-25-2020 05:56 AM

Lovely news! Congratulations to Eugenie and Jack.

Alisa 09-25-2020 06:07 AM

Yay!!!! Happy news!
The recent pics was a dead give away. Congratulations to the couple!

AC21091968 09-25-2020 06:09 AM

Excellent News!!! :clap: Congratulation to Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank!! :flowers:

The bears on the little slippers are so cute :smile:

Mirabel 09-25-2020 06:55 AM

Good news for a change!

So, now we need a gender poll?

SLV 09-25-2020 06:56 AM

Happy, happy news!!!

Fem 09-25-2020 06:58 AM

Congratulations to the couple! :baby: I'm very happy for Eugenie and Jack :biggrin:

I was thinking the announcement will be soon from the pictures of Eugenie in London a few days ago, but still, it's very nice to have it official and from the couple themselves.

Betsypaige 09-25-2020 07:00 AM

Aww, that’s wonderful...congratulations to the new parents to be!

Mirabel 09-25-2020 07:03 AM

Wonder if they'll remain in Ivy Cottage, or need to find someplace larger?

Curryong 09-25-2020 07:23 AM

I think they'll move from Ivy Cottage in the future.

Wonderful news. Congratulations to the couple!

ACO 09-25-2020 07:27 AM

Congrats to them. I had a feeling.

rominet09 09-25-2020 07:44 AM

Nice to hear good news from UK

Skippy 09-25-2020 07:57 AM

Congratulations Princess Eugenie and Jack! This is great news. :britflag:

Tilia C. 09-25-2020 08:12 AM

What happy news! Congratulations to the happy couple! It will be very exciting to wait for another great-grandchild of the Queen and Prince Philip.

Moonmaiden23 09-25-2020 08:17 AM

Announcement almost coincides with the 2nd wedding anniversary of Jack and Eugenie. Fantastic news!

Blog Real 09-25-2020 09:09 AM

Princess Eugenie on Instagram:
"Jack and I are so excited for early 2021...."
https://www.instagram.com/p/CFjXPhpF..._web_copy_link

Reaction from Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, to the news of Princess Eugenie's pregnancy:
"I am so excited by the news that Eugenie and Jack are expecting their first child. Thrilled for them both and in my 60th year cannot wait to be a grandmother. Welcoming a new baby into the York family is going to be a moment of profound joy."
https://www.instagram.com/p/CFjxB-_g..._web_copy_link

TLLK 09-25-2020 09:27 AM

Congratulations to Eugenie and Jack. Best wishes for an easy pregnancy and safe delivery.

Duchess_Watcher 09-25-2020 09:51 AM

I am so happy for her! Love Princess Eugenie!

Winnie 09-25-2020 10:55 AM

Always had a soft spot for Eugenie. Love the way she lights up when looking at her husband. So happy for her and Jack. Nice couple and wonderful news.

REAL COUNTESS 09-25-2020 12:19 PM

Congratulation to both of them. I for one am very happy for the couple. Looking forward to early 2021 for the news about the birth. Sarah and Andrew must be over the moon,so the Brookbanks. For the Queen and Prince Philip it will be a very happy occasion to welcome a new member to her large family.

stunking 09-25-2020 12:30 PM

Great news congrats Brooksbanks!

Duchessmary 09-25-2020 01:02 PM

Finally, something fun about 2020! Congratulations!! :flowers:

angieuk 09-25-2020 02:38 PM

Lovely news.
I was thinking APRIL, 2021?
But am now wondering:
Will it be a WINTER Baby?
Or a SPRING baby?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1339847/princess-eugenie-pregnant-royal-baby-Jack-Brooksbank-royal-family-latest-news
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1340101/Princess-Eugenie-pregnant-royal-baby-title-due-date-princess-Eugenie-baby-news
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1340060/princess-eugenie-royal-baby-name-what-will-royal-baby-be-called-jack-brooksbank
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1339938/royal-baby-due-date-when-is-princess-eugenie-due
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8772965/What-Eugenie-Jack-Brooksbank-baby-Bookies-release-odds.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8771821/Princess-Eugenie-Jack-Brooksbank-expecting-baby.html


An Ard Ri 09-25-2020 03:33 PM

Congratulations to the happy parents.

HereditaryPrincess 09-25-2020 03:39 PM

Congratulations to the couple! :flowers:
I wonder if they're giving us a hint with the booties as they're blue?!

poppy7 09-25-2020 04:45 PM

Amazing news for everyone. Congratulations.

Fijiro 09-25-2020 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 2344376)
Wonder if they'll remain in Ivy Cottage, or need to find someplace larger?

Congratulations to Princess Eugenie and Jack.
Maybe HM can give them a cottage to renovate - maybe York Cottage or Adelaide Cottage.

Tarlita 09-25-2020 07:31 PM

This is lovely news for a lovely couple. I wish her a trouble free pregnancy. There's nothing better than starting a family, with lots of hope and dreams of the future. And they have a great supportive family around them.

Countessmeout 09-25-2020 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess (Post 2344498)
Congratulations to the couple! :flowers:
I wonder if they're giving us a hint with the booties as they're blue?!

Cute little brown teddy bear slippers. A perfect gender neutral option to give nothing away if they do know ;):tongue:

Quote:

Congratulations to Princess Eugenie and Jack.
Maybe HM can give them a cottage to renovate - maybe York Cottage or Adelaide Cottage.
I don't see the queen gifting them a house. They aren't working royals. She didn't do for Zara or Peter. Letting them rent Ivy is another matter.

Ivy is three bedrooms, larger then Notts, so likely will work for now. Unless they want a live in nanny which might be awkward in a smaller space.

If the queen did give them a home, of your two suggestions really only Adelaide would make sense. York is up at Sandringham. Both Eugenie and Jack work full time in London. A home at Sandringham wouldn't be practical.

Eskimo 09-25-2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fijiro (Post 2344519)
Congratulations to Princess Eugenie and Jack.
Maybe HM can give them a cottage to renovate - maybe York Cottage or Adelaide Cottage.

If the Queen gives them something it will be at Sandringham or Balmoral— her private properties. After the controversy of Frogmore Cottage, I think George will be the only one getting crown estate property in the future.

CrownPrincessJava 09-25-2020 10:43 PM

That's such awesome news! You could tell at their wedding Pruncess Eugenie was looking forward to being a mother when she smirked when the priest mentioned children.

Lord_Royal 09-25-2020 11:58 PM

The kind of lovely news that we needed during this very trying year.

Here's to a safe and healthy pregnancy, and a swift delivery, for Princess Eugenie and Jack.

I'm sure Sarah is getting a monogramed handbag with 'Granny' embroidered on it as I type...

CyrilVladisla 09-26-2020 04:00 AM

Superb news! The happiest days are when a baby is born.

angieuk 09-26-2020 05:19 AM

Can we open a separate thread?

Boy or Girl?
Month expected?

Countessmeout 09-26-2020 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angieuk (Post 2344588)
Can we open a separate thread?

Boy or Girl?
Month expected?

We have a thread for name (so guessing gender is part of that) and godparents. Was started earlier today.

All we know is early 2021. Likely January-February. March would likely be called 'early spring'.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...aby-47933.html

Tatiana Maria 09-26-2020 07:39 PM

I wondered whether Princess Eugenie would be styled of York or Mrs. Jack Brooksbank in the announcement, but it split the difference and used neither of those designations.

It is interesting that her mother is styled as Sarah, Duchess of York, rather than the Duchess of York as she was styled in the engagement announcements for her daughters, and that Mr. Brooksbank's mother is styled Mrs. George Brooksbank, even though Mike Tindall's mother was styled with her own first name.

It is nice that the British media reports on the pregnancy mention that Eugenie's gender is the reason her child will be untitled.

QueenMathilde 09-26-2020 08:04 PM

Nothing really to contribute but a big congrats to the happy couple! I always liked Bea and Eugene.

AC21091968 09-26-2020 08:09 PM

Is there a possibility that Jack Brooksbank's mother was asked if she would be happy to be addressed "Mrs. George Brooksbank"?

Was Mike Tindall's addressed as Mrs. Linda Tindall, rather than Mrs. Philip Tindall?

Osipi 09-26-2020 08:25 PM

What a happy event to look forward to for all of the family. I'm really hoping that all Eugenie and Jack's trouble will be "little ones". That's good kind of trouble. :biggrin:

Countessmeout 09-26-2020 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC21091968 (Post 2344706)
Is there a possibility that Jack Brooksbank's mother was asked if she would be happy to be addressed "Mrs. George Brooksbank"?

Was Mike Tindall's addressed as Mrs. Linda Tindall, rather than Mrs. Philip Tindall?

When Mike and Zara announced it was 'Mr Philip and Mrs Linda Tindall have been informed and are delighted with the news'.

It seems its just a personal preference at how they are addressed. The wording is likely chosen in regards to address by the parents in question. Linda must prefer to use her name where Nicola is happy going traditional.

Kate and Autumn's parents weren't named at all. It was just 'their families'. With George's announcement, the queen, DOE, POW, DOC, and Harry were named but the middletons were 'and other members of both families'. With Charlotte and George the only ones named were Elizabeth and DOE, and 'members of both families' for everyone else.

AC21091968 09-26-2020 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 2344714)
When Mike and Zara announced it was 'Mr Philip and Mrs Linda Tindall have been informed and are delighted with the news'.

It seems its just a personal preference at how they are addressed. The wording is likely chosen in regards to address by the parents in question. Linda must prefer to use her name where Nicola is happy going traditional.

Kate and Autumn's parents weren't named at all. It was just 'their families'. With George's announcement, the queen, DOE, POW, DOC, and Harry were named but the middletons were 'and other members of both families'. With Charlotte and George the only ones named were Elizabeth and DOE, and 'members of both families' for everyone else.

Thank you for the direct quote for the Mike and Zara's baby announcement.

The reason that I could think of that Kate and Autumn's parents were not named, is that their grandchildren will not carry their surnames (Middleton or Kelly). In other words, Kate and Autumn's parents are the maternal side of the baby, hence they are not mentioned by their names. In contrast, Mike and Jack's parents are the paternal side of the baby, so they got mentioned. Of course, this is assuming that the baby will take his/her father's surname.

angieuk 09-27-2020 06:21 AM

In baby terms; what is meant by early 2021.

January?
February?
Is March classed as early?

Tatiana Maria 09-27-2020 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC21091968 (Post 2344721)
Thank you for the direct quote for the Mike and Zara's baby announcement.

The reason that I could think of that Kate and Autumn's parents were not named, is that their grandchildren will not carry their surnames (Middleton or Kelly). In other words, Kate and Autumn's parents are the maternal side of the baby, hence they are not mentioned by their names. In contrast, Mike and Jack's parents are the paternal side of the baby, so they got mentioned.

Interesting. I hope that in the future, in-laws will be treated alike regardless of whether they are from the paternal or maternal side.


Quote:

Originally Posted by AC21091968 (Post 2344721)
Of course, this is assuming that the baby will take his/her father's surname.

Most of the media reports baldly stated that the child will be Master or Miss Brooksbank. Of course, I assume the baby will indeed take his/her father's surname, but it is interesting that media outlets are reporting it as confirmed even though there was no mention of it in the pregnancy announcement. I wonder if that is because the child is legally required to take the father's surname (something that has been debated here on this forum) or simply because anything else would be unthinkable for a British royal baby? Or perhaps they have asked the palace privately and received confirmation.

Heavs 09-27-2020 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2344790)

Most of the media reports baldly stated that the child will be Master or Miss Brooksbank. Of course, I assume the baby will indeed take his/her father's surname, but it is interesting that media outlets are reporting it as confirmed even though there was no mention of it in the pregnancy announcement. I wonder if that is because the child is legally required to take the father's surname (something that has been debated here on this forum) or simply because anything else would be unthinkable for a British royal baby? Or perhaps they have asked the palace privately and received confirmation.


I don't know if it would be unthinkable but it would be highly unusual. In the UK I think the vast majority of children who's parents are married take their father's surname.



And if it's good enough for the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret.......I know those were decades ago. ;)



I see no reason why the baby needs to be Mountbatten-Windsor instead of Brooksbank. I suppose they could incorporate both parts if they wanted or use "York" as a middle name if that's important to her.



Eugenie still using "of York" in certain places doesn't mean she doesn't want her children to be Brooksbanks. They'll have the same perks that their 2nd and 3rd cousins have (Tindells, Phillips, little Windsors etc) without as many downsides as their HRH Prince/ss 2nd cousins.

Tatiana Maria 09-27-2020 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2344795)
I don't know if it would be unthinkable but it would be highly unusual. In the UK I think the vast majority of children who's parents are married take their father's surname.

[...]

Eugenie still using "of York" in certain places doesn't mean she doesn't want her children to be Brooksbanks. They'll have the same perks that their 2nd and 3rd cousins have (Tindells, Phillips, little Windsors etc) without as many downsides as their HRH Prince/ss 2nd cousins.

I agree, I fully expect the child will be a Brooksbank. However, in the normal course of events, I would not expect the media to state it as fact without receiving confirmation, unless anything else were truly unthinkable. That was what motivated my question.

As a comparison, I fully expected that neither Jack nor the couple's future children would be given titles, and there was and is no reason to think they would, but I would not expect the media to present that as fact before it was officially confirmed, and as far as I saw, they did not.

Mbruno 09-27-2020 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2344795)
I don't know if it would be unthinkable but it would be highly unusual. In the UK I think the vast majority of children who's parents are married take their father's surname.



And if it's good enough for the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret.......I know those were decades ago. ;)



I see no reason why the baby needs to be Mountbatten-Windsor instead of Brooksbank. I suppose they could incorporate both parts if they wanted or use "York" as a middle name if that's important to her.



Eugenie still using "of York" in certain places doesn't mean she doesn't want her children to be Brooksbanks. They'll have the same perks that their 2nd and 3rd cousins have (Tindells, Phillips, little Windsors etc) without as many downsides as their HRH Prince/ss 2nd cousins.


The Queen's statement to the Privy Council in 1960 makes it clear that the surname Mountbatten-Windsor does not apply to the Queen's female descendants who might marry or to the respective descendants of the latter. So it is clear that the Queen's female descendants are expected to take their husbands' name upon marriage and that their children are expected to use their father's surname.



Beatrice's and Eugenie's children will follow the same naming conventions that applied to Zara's children. Any deviation from that rule is highly unlikely.

Tatiana Maria 09-27-2020 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2344800)
The Queen's statement to the Privy Council in 1960 makes it clear that the surname Mountbatten-Windsor does not apply the Queen's female descendants who might marry or tp the respective descendants of the latter. So it is clear that the Queen's female descendants are expected to take their husbands' name upon marriage and that their children are expected to use their father's surname.

Beatrice's and Eugenie's children will follow the same naming conventions that applied to Zara's children. Any deviation from that rule is highly unlikely.

Again, I agree. But there is a difference between "highly unlikely" and "unthinkable/illegal", and the media reporting appears to treat it as the latter. That is interesting to me.

There have been discussions on this forum as to whether the Queen's statement to the Privy Council (or the similar statement of King George V in 1917) actually has the power to override the common-law right of individuals to choose their own surnames and the surnames of their minor children.

Edit: Moved my general question on this to here.

Heavs 09-27-2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2344800)
The Queen's statement to the Privy Council in 1960 makes it clear that the surname Mountbatten-Windsor does not apply the Queen's female descendants who might marry or tp the respective descendants of the latter. So it is clear that the Queen's female descendants are expected to take their husbands' name upon marriage and that their children are expected to use their father's surname.

Beatrice's and Eugenie's children will follow the same naming conventions that applied to Zara's children. Any deviation from that rule is highly unlikely.

Yes I'm aware of that, but I was considering that there is slight *potential* for a female descendent in 2020 and beyond to want to incorporate M-W as a hyphenate or as part of a middle name. Of course it's highly unlikely right now for this couple.

The Queen has given permission for many things that were highly unlikely in 1960.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2344799)
I agree, I fully expect the child will be a Brooksbank. However, in the normal course of events, I would not expect the media to state it as fact without receiving confirmation, unless anything else were truly unthinkable. That was what motivated my question.

As a comparison, I fully expected that neither Jack nor the couple's future children would be given titles, and there was and is no reason to think they would, but I would not expect the media to present that as fact before it was officially confirmed, and as far as I saw, they did not.

They may have asked for confirmation but I wouldn't be surprised if they're just making an educated assumption either, going on every other female HRHs children.

The baby is being born when their parents are married, Eugenie and Jack have given no indication they want to do anything different. Both families seem traditional about this sort of thing beyond any other factor that may or may need HM's permission.

IIRC if the baby was born out of wedlock they could be a M-W but that's a moot point.

She's low enough down the royal pecking order even though she's still 10th in the succession that no one is thinking "the baby might need or want to incorporate Windsor or York into their name for royal reasons".

I suspect that by the time Charlotte gets married, assuming there's still a monarchy then it might be more of a question that actually needs an official answer both because of societal changes and being the daughter of a King, even if the answer is still the traditional one.

But hey, the fun will begin again if/when Bea announces a pregnancy and we get to have another round of Count/ess Mapelli Mozzi or not. :D

AC21091968 09-27-2020 09:52 AM

: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/KensingtonRoyal/...39344887848960
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/RoyalFamily/stat...45170457317376

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-duches...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.

Somebody 09-27-2020 03:00 PM

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.

Tatiana Maria 09-27-2020 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2344862)
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.

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.

Heavs 09-27-2020 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2344863)

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.

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.

Tatiana Maria 09-27-2020 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2344869)
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.

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.

CyrilVladisla 09-28-2020 03:40 AM

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.

REAL COUNTESS 09-28-2020 11:47 AM

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.

principessa 09-28-2020 12:02 PM

I think it could be a nice birthday surprise for Prince Philip if Baby Brooksbank would be christened at his 100th birthday.

angieuk 09-28-2020 04:10 PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...t-reveals.html

Eugenie and Jack want baby to make their own way in the world.

LauraS3514 09-29-2020 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS (Post 2345029)
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.

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.

REAL COUNTESS 09-29-2020 11:30 AM

Thank you Laura S 3514 for the update.

angieuk 09-30-2020 03:59 PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ouncement.html

Anyone take a guess what month she's due?

Alison H 09-30-2020 04:44 PM

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.

Lori138 10-01-2020 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angieuk (Post 2345537)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ouncement.html

Anyone take a guess what month she's due?

I say February, mid month. Perhaps a Valentine's baby?

Mademoiselle Lilo 10-02-2020 06:59 PM

This is a great news and most waited i guess
Congratulations to the happy parents

Tatiana Maria 10-02-2020 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2345547)
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.

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.

MsJulie 10-03-2020 12:18 AM

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.

SLV 10-03-2020 01:34 AM

I think that if the children were supposed to have titles, that the parents would have got one upon their marriage.

AC21091968 10-03-2020 02:15 AM

: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/a...-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.

LauraS3514 10-03-2020 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC21091968 (Post 2346275)
: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.

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.

HereditaryPrincess 10-03-2020 05:41 PM

I was surprised Eugenie's children would be allowed titles in the first place, so am not surprised that she has declined them.

Heavs 10-03-2020 06:02 PM

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.

Tatiana Maria 10-03-2020 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC21091968 (Post 2346275)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 2346279)
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.

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

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...ooksbank-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-fa...g-family-life/



Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2346455)
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.

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.

Somebody 10-03-2020 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess (Post 2346450)
I was surprised Eugenie's children would be allowed titles in the first place, so am not surprised that she has declined them.

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).

Tatiana Maria 10-03-2020 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2346478)
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).

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

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...ooksbank-plans

Countessmeout 10-04-2020 01:23 AM

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.

Tatiana Maria 10-04-2020 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 2346489)
The daily mail likes to make up news stories. No shocker there. [...]

Again, the story came from Vanity Fair, not the Daily Mail.

Denville 10-04-2020 10:56 AM

Why would they be offered atitle for Jack? Anne was apparnetly against the idea in the 1970s, and its now 2020....

Osipi 10-04-2020 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2346564)
Why would they be offered atitle for Jack? Anne was apparnetly against the idea in the 1970s, and its now 2020....

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. :biggrin:

Denville 10-04-2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2346565)
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. :biggrin:

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

Tatiana Maria 10-04-2020 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2346564)
Why would they be offered atitle for Jack? Anne was apparnetly against the idea in the 1970s, and its now 2020....

The story may be false, but it is interesting that at least one "source" wishes it to be believed.

If it is true, then the Queen may have "offered" a title for the purpose of consistency with past marriages of princesses, with the understanding that it would not be accepted.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2346565)
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. :biggrin:

But the tone of the story strikes me as being flattering.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2346567)
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

The story does not claim it was recent.

PrincessofEurope 10-04-2020 11:42 AM

What a cute announcement on her instagram - when I saw the pictures of her shopping I suspected she was pregnant.

She isn't a "public working royal" so I felt if she had wanted to keep it quiet then she could and I was pleasantly surprised when they did announce it

rmay286 10-04-2020 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincessofEurope (Post 2346571)
What a cute announcement on her instagram - when I saw the pictures of her shopping I suspected she was pregnant.

She isn't a "public working royal" so I felt if she had wanted to keep it quiet then she could and I was pleasantly surprised when they did announce it

Unfortunately Eugenie wouldn't have been able to keep it quiet, because the Daily Mail often publishes photos of her out and about. If she didn't announce she was pregnant, there just would've been lots of rude comments about weight gain...

But also, Eugenie has shared many of her happy life moments and milestones on her Instagram, so I'm not surprised she shared the baby news as well (in a very cute and tasteful way!)

HereditaryPrincess 10-04-2020 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2346485)
I believe they were replying to a Daily Mail article (post #72) based upon this story:

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...ooksbank-plans

Indeed. I thought that much would've been clear.

Denville 10-04-2020 06:01 PM

my point was that the issue had been raised 2 years ago and been thrashed out....The press drags these things up because they have to fill up their pages but It was never likley that Eugene's husband would be offered a title.

Countessmeout 10-04-2020 06:09 PM

:previous: Exactly :flowers:

We see this whenever it’s a slow news day with royals. They work hard to try and spin new angles. Or drudge up old stories and hope no one notices. Magazines copy each other all the time and use each other as sources.

It starting with VA and not DM (sorry I don’t have time or desire to read every trashy article I only read the DM) is a moot point at this. It’s just a desperate attempt for clicks for money.

REAL COUNTESS 10-04-2020 07:51 PM

Didn't somewhere in Jacks Biography states that he has a Title and a Coat of Arms it just is not used. He also is related to Eugenie. Maybe he want to use his?

AC21091968 10-04-2020 08:30 PM

The Vanity Fair article contains quite a few of speculations. One of them was
In addition, Andrew will reportedly not be invited to any of the public ceremonies honoring his father, Prince Philip, on his 100th birthday next June.
This was apparently based on The Sun, where "an insider" mentioned that "He will not be invited to major celebrations and organisers have been told to avoid pictures of him in a photo exhibition." The photo exhibition will be organised by the Royal Collection Trust.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/126541...ay-airbrushed/

I don't understand why Vanity Fair have to drag Andrew's name in Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank's future children arrangement. This is especially with a very unreliable source on Prince Philip's 100th Birthday arrangement. Ok, Baby Brooksbank might be included in the "photo exhibition", but nothing is set in stone.

The VF article also mentioned about the absence of official photograph of Savannah Phillips, Isla Phillips and Mia Tindall, after their birth. Archie did have an official "photo-call and family portrait" after his birth, as well as "official portraits" after his christening.
The public events surrounding royal births have varied over the last decade. When Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had their son, Archie, his birth was followed by an official photo-call and family portraits. While his christening was held privately, a series of official portraits were released a few days later. For the Queen's grandchildren without titles, the affairs are much quieter. When Peter Phillips’ daughters, Savannah and Isla, are the queen’s two oldest great-grandchildren, were born in 2010 and 2012 respectively, the palace released statements, but no official photos accompanied them. Their christenings were also private, though the queen was in attendance. When another great-grandchild, Mia Tindall, was christened, the public only saw pictures of the family assembling because an ITV reporter just so happened to be visiting the Gloucestershire village where the ceremony took place.
Of course the photographs will depend on the location/time of Baby Brooksbank's birth and whether or not Eugenie and Jack or the Royal Family want to release pictures (alongside with the announcement). I am not quite sure when the York Princesses usually leave Sandringham Estate after Christmas. Otherwise, I think Eugenie could give birth in Sandringham, rather than London if the expected date is very early 2021. There is also the possibility of releasing photographs after Baby Brooksbank's christening.

Denville 10-05-2020 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS (Post 2346640)
Didn't somewhere in Jacks Biography states that he has a Title and a Coat of Arms it just is not used. He also is related to Eugenie. Maybe he want to use his?

He does not have a title that isn't used

Heavs 10-05-2020 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS (Post 2346640)
Didn't somewhere in Jacks Biography states that he has a Title and a Coat of Arms it just is not used. He also is related to Eugenie. Maybe he want to use his?


He is in line to the Brooksbank Baronetcy that his father's cousin currently holds. The family has a Coat of Arms which have never been used in connection with Jack or Jack and Eugenie and a (theoretical) conjugal Coat of Arms.


They are distantly related a few times over as detailed in the Jack Brooksback family and background thread by some dedicated posters. It's clear that Jack, like Edo is very well connected to the British aristocracy, nobility and upper class.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises