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)

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises