Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?
Of course he will. Why wouldn't he? These people are adults. The only way he is not there is if it is impossible for him to be there.
Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?
Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?
m
As for Eugenie's gown, is it going to be £250,000, which is what Meghan's gown was priced at, according to the DM guesstimate? Because, if it is, considering that the York family is not very popular, that's likely to pile on the ill will as well.
Let's face it. No matter what Eugenie and Jack decided to do with their wedding, there will always be those that look for *any* excuse to jump on the complaint bandwagon.
EXACTLY!! This right here sums up everything, I can almost guarantee that if it was anyone else’s wedding we wouldn’t be having half these discussions.
Anyone except her sister. It might be worse for Beatrice.
I don't believe she is having a similar wedding to Peter's. I thought she would, but that's not what we are seeing here. I know Peter didn't have a carriage rides through public streets, and I'm pretty certain I didn't read about people on the grounds to watch the wedding. It's more like Edward's, except for maybe being televised live. I think everyone is ok with normal security when the wedding isn't public, but now we are talking about a much bigger operation when the public streets have to be secured for the carriage ride.
That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.Despite the planned roll-back on HRH titles, Princess Eugenie is an HRH, perhaps with a less higher profile than her cousins (William and Harry), but with prominent connections to the Queen. She's part of the immediate royal family as a granddaughter to the Queen. It was Princess Anne's choice for her children to not have titles in order for them to be able to maintain a relatively private lifestyle. Prince Andrew decided differently.
Even with all of that notwithstanding, why all of the side-eye toward Eugenie planning the wedding that she wants? Frankly, I think that Eugenie and Jack feel inspired by the love between the Sussexes, and that the entire royal family is looking forward to celebrating another royal family wedding. Let Eugenie and Jack do it in the way that they please. Protection would be necessary at Windsor, regardless of them having a carriage ride or not through part of the town.
That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.
By all intents and purposes, there is nothing different between Andrew's children and Anne or Edward's children at this point. They are private citizens. If we all use that to defend them when they are being treated unfairly, then they need to live as if they are private citizens, and that does not include protection cost for their wedding carriage ride for their wedding. If Andrew wants to absorb the cost, that's a different story.
That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.
By all intents and purposes, there is nothing different between Andrew's children and Anne or Edward's children at this point. They are private citizens. If we all use that to defend them when they are being treated unfairly, then they need to live as if they are private citizens, and that does not include protection cost for their wedding carriage ride for their wedding. If Andrew wants to absorb the cost, that's a different story.
I don't accept the premise that there is no difference between royal highnesses and not titled family members of the queen. For family occassions there is no difference between any of the queen's grandchildren (that includes the dukes) but for royal purposes there are various categories that we could work with.
1. The core royals (adult direct line and spouses; so queen, prince of Wales and duke of Cambridge & spouses)
2. Secondary royals working for the firm (queen's other children, duke of Sussex, dukes of Gloucester and Kent & some spouses)
3. Other royals limitedly working for the firm (prince and princess Michael of Kent, duchess of Kent, princess Alexandra?, princesses Beatrice and Eugenie)
4. Non-royal family members
5. Children
If the Queen is happy for the couple to have a carriage ride through the centre of Windsor, who are we to whine?
Then she can pay for the security cost and no one would say anything about it.
In talking about promoting the monarchy. I can understand making a spectacle of a popular royal or a core member of the family to promote. But why would you spend all of this on someone that's not so popular, or something that there isn't that much interest from the people? Especially for a family that's already seen as entitled and spoiled. Does them no favors.
That's why I put her with a question mark. I doubted between 2 and 3 - previously she clearly was in category 2. I don't follow her closely, so I am not sure about whether she still is as active as when they had a greater need for a female influence.I think fairly accurate except Princess Alexandra should be with the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester--and the Queen's children do more than her cousins at this point in their lives.
Good point.
Until recently, Eugenie (and Beatrice) weren't well-known at all.
Lately they are seen at more events and are becoming much more recognizable, but there are still people who mix the two of them up.
(Still, I have to admit I am looking forward to this wedding, and it does seem to be on a more opulent scale than Peter Phillips' wedding was).
Then she can pay for the security cost and no one would say anything about it.
In talking about promoting the monarchy. I can understand making a spectacle of a popular royal or a core member of the family to promote. But why would you spend all of this on someone that's not so popular, or something that there isn't that much interest from the people? Especially for a family that's already seen as entitled and spoiled. Does them no favors.
Then she can pay for the security cost and no one would say anything about it.
In talking about promoting the monarchy. I can understand making a spectacle of a popular royal or a core member of the family to promote. But why would you spend all of this on someone that's not so popular, or something that there isn't that much interest from the people? Especially for a family that's already seen as entitled and spoiled. Does them no favors.
I'm sure there are anti-monarchists on British soil who may take issue with security costs, but then they would probably take issue with most British monarchy expenses. From what I can detect from afar, there are a majority of British citizens who truly enjoy the tradition and the pomp & circumstance involved with British royal public ceremonies, and royal weddings (no matter that Princess Eugenie leads more of a private life than her cousins, William and Harry).
The traditions surrounding British royal weddings seem to be happy and unifying for many of the British people. Royal weddings are rare, so why not take advantage of enjoying this additional happy royal celebration later this year? Especially, with all the political problems and unavoidable concerns and worries surrounding Britain's economic future? This is a rare time for unity and happy celebrations. I don't feel Eugenie is going over the top. Neither did Harry & Meghan. Perhaps Eugenie's wedding will give a slight additional boost to the economy, particularly in Windsor. And as well, it might sustain the interest in overseas travelers visiting Windsor Castle and the town of Windsor. ?
If not being a UK citizens exclude us from talking finances, then most of us shouldn't be talking on this board.Since you are apparently not a British citizen, why are you concerned about security costs for Princess Eugenie's wedding? I still don't see what the problem is exactly. Are you referencing the York family as entitled and spoiled?
In my previous post, I wasn't talking about 'promoting' the British monarchy. I said that a lot of positive public interest has extended to the royal family as a direct result of the interest in Prince Harry's relationship with an American citizen, Meghan Markle. That both Harry and Meghan share a wonderful love story and are also positive role models is another factor in their widespread popularity and in the interest generated by their royal wedding. The British monarchy has obviously been naturally promoted in a positive light for the most part simply as an after-effect or after-glow.
Another byproduct of M&H's relationship/wedding has been the huge boost to the British economy. Therefore, in a year of royal wedding fever, I do not personally see security costs for an abbreviated town of Windsor carriage ride for Eugenie's royal wedding as a huge expense. There will be security costs involved anyway with most of the major British royals attending the wedding. I realize there is added cost for the carriage ride happening outside the confines of Windsor Castle grounds. But to me that cost seems negligible under the circumstances (especially relative to what each individual British citizen would be out of pocket for). And it's not as if either Princess Eugenie or Prince Andrew do absolutely nothing for their country.
I've heard some of the criticisms about Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie over the years, but I haven't followed such rancor closely. Some of that negativity likely comes as a result of their parents' general unpopularity. But time has passed, and Beatrice & Eugenie have grown up a bit and are trying to improve their images. I personally do not think either of them have poor characters, so I think they should be given less side-eye and negative criticism, particularly in regard to Eugenie's current desires surrounding her royal wedding.
Prince Andrew felt differently. And in the case of Prince Edward, the decision was made that he would inherit his father's title one day, so that he was named the Earl of Wessex in the interim. His children are entitled to be Prince/Princess, but again, the decision was made (likely with the full approval of the Wessexes) for their children to not be styled HRH Prince/Princess.
Because Prince Andrew felt differently, both of his daughters are HRH Princesses. IMHO, there is a lot of positive public interest right now in the royal family due to the relationship between M&H and their subsequent wedding. Jack and Eugenie likely have had an understanding for awhile, and then Prince Harry found the love of his life and beat them to the altar. I see nothing wrong with royal wedding fever.