Eugenie and Jack: Wedding Suggestions and Musings Thread


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did say apparently..

This is more than likely the second to last royal wedding we’re going to see until Louise or James, and we’re not going to see a big one until George or Charlotte. People seem to forget how much the public love a royal event, we love something to boost morale. The only people I see having an issue with it are the keyboard warriors from the Daily Mail. Everyone else is either going to love it or are going to be completely no bothered and just go about their ordinary Friday.

This is Eugenies day and everything that’s happening has had the HM seal of approval, I for one think everything they’ve done is a good idea.
 
1) I'm well aware many British weddings take place on a weekday as oppose to weekend. I didn't have an issue with it when it was initially announced. The issue here is that the BRF has generally been considerate in recent times regarding disruption to public on a day where most people don't have it off. Charles and Camilla's blessing didn't include a carriage ride. The fact that it's the same route as Sophie and Edward, and they also saw a need to have it on a weekend is telling.

2) Again, this goes back to the weekday and weekend situation. It's just asking for problems where it could've easily been avoided.

3) The route is the same as Sophie and Edwards. Not quite as long as Meghan and Harry's, but the road closures and security forces will still be out. Again, Sophie and Edward saw it best to have it on a weekend as well as it will cause disruption when people wouldn't get the day off.

4) Eugenie might be able to go about her business in London alone, but this is turning into a public event. The security isn't just for her and Jack at this point, but also for the people that comes out. Every time there is a major gathering, the risk of an attack on members of the public heightens. And the question does come up if the public should pay for the security cost of this for a private individual. Even with working royals, there are upsets over it.

Look, I agree that the York girls are often mocked unfairly in the press, but this type of thing won't help. The decisions made for this wedding seems to be a step back to what the BRF has been trying to do. Which is be more understanding to the lives of everyday people who has to work for a living among other things. To revert back to what the BRF has been doing with weddings in recent years is not helping matters. If they wanted to have a public wedding, at least have the courtesy to do it on a weekend. If they wanted a private wedding, they can have it on any day of the week and it's no one's business other than them and their guests.

Still don't get your point of Saturday vs Friday.

- Only a short stretch of the road will be shut, so hardly a major inconvenience.

- As regards the attendance of school children fro Eugenie's old school, if the Head did not want the children to attend, they could have declined the invitation.

I did say apparently..

This is more than likely the second to last royal wedding we’re going to see until Louise or James, and we’re not going to see a big one until George or Charlotte. People seem to forget how much the public love a royal event, we love something to boost morale. The only people I see having an issue with it are the keyboard warriors from the Daily Mail. Everyone else is either going to love it or are going to be completely no bothered and just go about their ordinary Friday.

This is Eugenies day and everything that’s happening has had the HM seal of approval, I for one think everything they’ve done is a good idea.

I have to agree with you. This is all being done with the consent of HM, so lets just rely on the judgement of our beloved monarch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The taxpayer will most likely foot the bill for the security but it is suspected to be much lower than that of Henry and Meghans bill which was apparently around the £20mil mark. You'll have the usual naysayers on DailyMail comments who moan about the cost of everything but I frankly can't think there's going to be out and out rage over the cost. Considering its a wedding and a happy occasion, we all love a royal wedding!

I am a big supporter of the Monarchy but I am astounded by this comment. This isn't about anyone 'moaning', you clearly have no idea about the struggles the British people are facing or you simply don't care. I work with people who have to feed their families via food banks so yes there will indeed be out and out rage over this. The British are very patriotic but don't push people to the limit, please.
 
I am a big supporter of the Monarchy but I am astounded by this comment. This isn't about anyone 'moaning', you clearly have no idea about the struggles the British people are facing or you simply don't care. I work with people who have to feed their families via food banks so yes there will indeed be out and out rage over this. The British are very patriotic but don't push people to the limit, please.

If the public had such an issue with the cost of royalty, we wouldn't have one. Regardless of anyones position in the royal family, if there was such a problem with spending money on security we would have had riots on the streets for Henrys wedding. Just because he represents the crown more, doesn't mean he should have an expensive wedding at the cost of the taxpayer. You're suggesting that people are to going to be more offended about paying for the security of Eugenie's wedding because she doesn't officially represent the crown, I really don't understand that comment.

People who write at the bottoms of royal articles on the Daily Mail are moaning, you just have to read the comments to discover that. I'm not quite sure how you managed to link that, to people who are living from food banks. I never said they were one and the same.

Lastly, please don't make assumptions of a person when you do not know them. It's quite un-necessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Posts containing comments about Brexit which is not only related to politics but is quite clearly unrelated to the topic of the thread, have been removed. Now lets move on.
 
Doesn't Eugenie have a simular kind of wedding as Peter Philips? That didn't cause the end of the monarchy, I doubt that her wedding will.

Would you prefer the royal family not to be protected btw?
 
Doesn't Eugenie have a simular kind of wedding as Peter Philips? That didn't cause the end of the monarchy, I doubt that her wedding will.

Would you prefer the royal family not to be protected btw?

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.
 
Last edited:
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

Peters carriage ride took them from St Georges Chapel directly to Frogmore House, no route was ever released.

By the looks of the Eugenie carriage plan they're turning left out of St Georges, along High Street and Park street then turning left again onto the Long Walk and back to the Castle. Possibly a 5 maybe 10 minute journey.

I also think we've forgotten when these people are getting married, Eugenie in 2018, Edward in 1999 and Peter in 2008. Expectations have changed.
 
Peters carriage ride took them from St Georges Chapel directly to Frogmore House, no route was ever released.

By the looks of the Eugenie carriage plan they're turning left out of St Georges, along High Street and Park street then turning left again onto the Long Walk and back to the Castle. Possibly a 5 maybe 10 minute journey.

I also think we've forgotten when these people are getting married, Eugenie in 2018, Edward in 1999 and Peter in 2008. Expectations have changed.

Expectation have changed over time, but it's the other way than this. Eugenie is HRH, but that only meant something at the time when she's young. These days, more and more people are considering her to be the same as all of the Queen's other grandchildren that don't have the HRH title. We also have to remember that Edward is the son of the monarch, and Eugenie will never be the daughter of a monarch. While Edward and Sophie weren't intended to be full time royals, I believe he and Sophie were still expected to carry out some royal duties. Whereas it's not expected at all for Eugenie and Jack.
 
Sorry I meant in regards to their weddings, not their titles.
I was talking about the general treatment regarding members of the royal family and in general weddings are part of that trend. In the 80s, it'd be unthinkable for a grandchild from a male line of the monarch to not be titled, but today it's not the case at all. In the 80s, it'd also be difficult to imagine Harry would get married at St. George's rather than Westminster Abbey like Andrew and Fergie did. While the monarchy remains popular (partly due to the changes that's been made to be more understanding to the working folks), the York family general doesn't seem to be with the public (I'm not here to debate whether it's fair or not, but it is the way it is). So the public actually has less tolerance for certain things than with a royal that is closer to the throne and popular.

For their own good, I hope this is televised or livestreamed, and NOT sold to Hello. I think they'll take some hits for the cost as it is. If they tried to benefit out of it financially, that's just going to be a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
There is no reason at all to expect this wedding to be sold to Hello.

Furthermore, security costs would probably be higher on Saturday than on Friday. As others explained, Saturday is the more busy day in Windsor, so it could be even seen as very considerate that they picked a Friday. Fewer people will be inconvenienced: the ones who are interested in the royal wedding will make sure to be in Windsor and others will be at home or at work when the carriage ride is taking place. I don't expect them to pick rush hour (if Windsor even has such a thing) for their carriage ride...
 
The carriage ride is common knowledge and I have seen no backlash as of yet.
 
So -if I understand it correctly- the difference between the weddings of Peter Phillips and Pss Eugenie s the length of the carriage ride? And for some reason that is a great outrage that will bring about the downfall of the monarchy? It seems rather far-fetched to me.
 
So -if I understand it correctly- the difference between the weddings of Peter Phillips and Pss Eugenie s the length of the carriage ride? And for some reason that is a great outrage that will bring about the downfall of the monarchy? It seems rather far-fetched to me.

If I understand it correctly, the main differences are:
1. The carriage ride is taking place in Windsor itself rather than on the private grounds between the castle en Frogmore.
2. The wedding is on Friday instead of Saturday

I personally don't see the problem and do see the difference between a non-royal grandchild of the queen getting married and a royal highness (who would have been the future (royal) duke of York had she been a boy) getting married but some lump them all in the same category of 'other grandchildren - not by the prince of Wales'.
 
Last edited:
Eugenie's wedding is seemingly bigger than Peter's and more on the scale of Edward's except that it is not televised. It have no issue with it. It is what it is. People will complain regardless so might as well let Eugenie have her day.
 
Last edited:
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/07/princess-eugenie-wedding-details?mbid=social_twitter
This Vanity Fair article seems to have an 'inside source' helping them with content, but knowing that magazine and their reputability, a lot of what they said may still be true. It seems a televised service is still being discussed, which I understand, it seems like they worded the broadcast portion of the recent release very carefully IMO.

Vanity Fair's online articles aren't any better than some of the tabloids, TBH. They have a different standard for the print version and their in-depth analysis portions. And this is by Katie Nicholl. Do I need to say anymore? :lol:

So -if I understand it correctly- the difference between the weddings of Peter Phillips and Pss Eugenie s the length of the carriage ride? And for some reason that is a great outrage that will bring about the downfall of the monarchy? It seems rather far-fetched to me.

No one said anything about bringing down the monarchy. Just that this isn't going to go over too well. And especially not for the perception of the York family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rebecca English was asked about television and she said it hasn’t been decided. There’s still hope for royal watchers.
 
It will be interesting to see the coverage for it if it is televised. It is not cheap which is why many stations don't unless they feel they will make a profit from it. I would like it to be but I am not expecting a whole lot.
 
After Harry and Meghan's wedding, the Thames Valley police stated that the security bill was likely to be around the £3 million pounds mark. Tabloids had placed it at around £30 million. If that's not wildly inflated I don't know what is!

Tabloids, read by millions of Britons, are likely to also tot up lists of prices (also inflated) for the flowers, wine, party, food, entertainment etc, if they follow what they printed in May, inflaming readers, as that is their intention, who may well be struggling financially.

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. Times have changed and people aren't as tolerant of what is regarded as extravagances by an extremely wealthy royal family.
 
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. If they had decided to have a simple destination wedding to Necker Island at the behest of Sir Richard Branson, there would be a huge hue and cry that a British princess should have a traditional full blown British wedding with all the British traditions, pomp and ceremony. They were just not in any kind of a position to win no matter what they decided on.

I think most likely Eugenie and Jack went into all the planning for the wedding with their eyes wide open, the approval and consent by HM, The Queen and the happiness and joy of both sets of parents. The rest is just noise.
 
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. If they had decided to have a simple destination wedding to Necker Island at the behest of Sir Richard Branson, there would be a huge hue and cry that a British princess should have a traditional full blown British wedding with all the British traditions, pomp and ceremony. They were just not in any kind of a position to win no matter what they decided on.

I think most likely Eugenie and Jack went into all the planning for the wedding with their eyes wide open, the approval and consent by HM, The Queen and the happiness and joy of both sets of parents. The rest is just noise.
Honestly, if she went off to Neckers Island, I doubt anyone would care except for the Queen not being there and what Kate and Meghan are wearing. Of all the royal reporters/photographers I follow, only about a handful tweeted or even just retweeted the Royal Family tweet about this.
 
Honestly, if she went off to Neckers Island, I doubt anyone would care except for the Queen not being there and what Kate and Meghan are wearing. Of all the royal reporters/photographers I follow, only about a handful tweeted or even just retweeted the Royal Family tweet about this.

I saw them all retweeting the info. It is August. The closer I am sure there will be more talk. The royalist will come out as they always do. I don't expect the same kind of hype but people will be interested especially as it nears.
 
I saw them all retweeting the info. It is August. The closer I am sure there will be more talk. The royalist will come out as they always do. I don't expect the same kind of hype but people will be interested especially as it nears.

Last I checked, Roya Nikkhah, Richard Palmer, Emily Andrews, Camilla Tominey, Arthur Edwards, and a number of others all have not. And they usually are on top of royal news.
 
Last edited:
Last I checked, Roya Nikkhah, Richard Palmer, Emily Andrews, Camilla Tominey, and Arthur Edwards all have not. And they usually are on top of royal news.

Well I stand corrected. I saw it posted a few times. I didn't go check them all. That said, nothing I said changes. It is not even August. People will get more into it closer to the date. Not seeing what the issue is. *shrugs*

Do you Eugenie.
 
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. If they had decided to have a simple destination wedding to Necker Island at the behest of Sir Richard Branson, there would be a huge hue and cry that a British princess should have a traditional full blown British wedding with all the British traditions, pomp and ceremony. They were just not in any kind of a position to win no matter what they decided on.

I think most likely Eugenie and Jack went into all the planning for the wedding with their eyes wide open, the approval and consent by HM, The Queen and the happiness and joy of both sets of parents. The rest is just noise.

Indeed. A destination wedding would surely be something that all the critics would jump on: how dare a British princess do such a thing (and of course, she won't!)

Of course everyone knows that the wedding won't be as big as Harry and Meghan's, so if the couple and family are happy with the arrangements and they make sure that the British public can at least join the joyful occasion in some way, I'd say they do an excellent job.

For comparison: the Dutch king's Van Vollenhoven cousins' weddings were all televised (by NOS - comparable to the BBC) and the younger two of them lost their place in the line of succession upon that same marriage (not because their marriage was considered problematic but because they weren't considered needed - and a consented marriage would require legislation, so they decided not to bother); so they were not expected to play a role in 'the firm' but still the people enjoyed watching their wedding.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?
 
Do you believe that Prince Philip will attend the wedding?

If he is able to, I assume so. It's in Windsor, so quite easy for him to attend (and he managed to be in the same room as Sarah at Harry's wedding, so they got that out of the way as well).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom