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.
... Harry is a very popular royal and and both of them are expected to do work on behalf of the Firm for the remainder of their lives. Eugenie is not. The Sussex wedding was also of great interest on a global stage, which if we are going to talk about tourism revenue, that's very important. Even then, there were complaints about the cost. As I've pointed out before, even just going by the coverage by the royal correspondents on this, the interest isn't that high even in UK. Again, I don't see how putting on a spectacle for a non-working member of the family while costing public money would be a good imagery from a cost standpoint, which is always a sore spot.

None of what you are saying here truly makes a case for your criticisms against Eugenie's plans for her wedding. Anyone can feel the way they feel and provide reasons. But your complaints about the security costs have been rebutted. So exactly what is it you don't like?

From your comments above it seems to me that you are overly focused on the media making comparisons between Meghan vs Eugenie in order to drum up conflict and to get clicks. I do not think any such competition exists between these two ladies in reality. Moreover, there's really no need for anyone to throw up arguments against Eugenie doing exactly as she pleases for her wedding. As I said earlier, I believe that Eugenie & Jack have been inspired by the Sussexes relationship and public profile in a very positive way. I also don't think Eugenie is going to be exactly 'putting on a spectacle' as you describe her plans.

And as I mentioned earlier and @Osipi reiterated, the pomp & circumstance of a royal wedding is a cause for celebration. I'm happy that @royalhighness linked the delightful clip of Katharine Worsley's wedding to the Duke of Kent in the early 1960s. I was actually thinking of that very wedding when I composed some of my previous posts. I saw that wedding at York Minster for the first time recently on Youtube. Before, I had only seen photos, so it was so lovely to see live-action video. It is a perfect example of how the monarchy's traditions and larger-than-life family togetherness is a demonstration of the more positive attribute of continuity that resonates not only for the British public, but for people around the world. The Queen was so young then, and in only the 8th year of her reign. Princess Anne and Lady Jane Spencer (now Fellowes) served as bridesmaids. Over 50 years later, Lady Jane Fellowes provided the reading at her nephew's royal wedding. :D
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you are so interest in psychoanalyzing me as I believe it is inappropriate and against the forum rules since this isn't about me. If you have a point to what I said regarding Eugenie's wedding, please make it. Otherwise, don't pretend to know what I'm thinking. I don't do this to you, I'd appreciate the same respect.

As for Fergie, my point was the double standards between the reaction to parents of royals and non-royals.

As for attending public functions, the Phillips and the Wessex children all do. I do find them to be equals and I don't think there is any difference in the HRH status other than in name only at this point. It would've been different in the 80s when they were born. Why does any of us have disagreements over royals and criticize them as a lot of things are none of our business? By this logic, half of the posts on this forum wouldn't exist.

And btw, I never said going to clubs is an issue. It's called being young. Although, that is when the tabloids would be interested and thus cause more scrutiny. It's not simply a royal thing, but all famous people issue. And Harry has had his fair share of critique over partying, but it's been years since we've seen him go in or out of a club.

You said you enjoy debating and backing up your opinions @jacqui24. I've simply responded to where I disagree with your objections regarding Eugenie's wedding plans.

In your comeback responses, you keep referencing what others think about the York sisters, etc., and then attempt to deflect and defuse your original strong objections regarding the carriage ride and security costs, by bringing up side issues. For example, I rebutted the side issue of your reference to the Yorks going out to clubs, which you commented on in a negative way. And now, you are suggesting that you didn't bring it up as an issue. At the same time, you are repeating my rebuttal that it's something young people do. In addition, you bring up Harry's youthful propensity for partying, which I also already mentioned in my prior post.

So essentially you are rebutting me with my rebuttal of your original comments. Right, there is no point to this discussion by this point. So you agree there's no legitimate reason to complain about Eugenie's wedding plans. :D Or, we disagree and that's fine too.

And no, I'm not a psychoanalyst, but I do enjoy a reasonable debate that involves addressing the topic, and ending the discussion when there's nothing left to debate.
 
Last edited:
I would define Eugenie and Jack's wedding as a private family wedding with courtesies extended to the public that have an interest in it.



I don't see any difference at all between Harry's wedding, and what we know of Eugenie's.


What would make one public, and the other private? Simply that Eugenie is not a working royal?
 
I don't see any difference at all between Harry's wedding, and what we know of Eugenie's.


What would make one public, and the other private? Simply that Eugenie is not a working royal?

Of course, that is a pretty big difference. Eugenie has never been a working royal, her father is NOT the future King.. Harry's is and he will pretty certainly be a working royal, one of the major players in the famil for all his life.. (lets hope)…
Eugenie is alos a bit unlucky in that Harry's usually been pretty popular with the public and she and Bea haven't.. Some of that is due to the baggage that comes from her parents who have both goofed up a lot. But she and Bea could have overcome that, if they'd say decided to be full time charity ladies and secured some press attention for their good works.. but while they both do a bit, they're not that big on it.. and Bea I think hasn't been much of a steady worker at any job...

so she's not popular on her own account, she's seen as the daughter of the "awful Fergie" and she is the daughter of a second son... and It seems likely that when Charles is king, he will confine "working royals" to his own self, his wife and his sons and their wives....
 
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.

Actually this is incorrect, IMO. Mark Phillips decided he didn't want a title, which therefore determined his children wouldn't have one. Thats the only way they were ever going to get one.

Andrew having a title never affected his children being HRHs that was their birthright, it is only Edward who has chosen for his children to be known according to his title and this has more to do with the time in which he was married, and the publics change in mood towards the royals.

That is completely untrue. It's one thing to protect the royals inside the castle, it's another when it's a public spectacle.

But surely, there was always going to be security outside the castle because of the way in which everyone, all royals and guests, will be arriving to St Georges. It's going to be the same as Meghan and Henry, which means security would have to be of a similar standing at least outside Windsor Castle. Now it's just being extended for a short journey in a carriage.



Then she can pay for the security cost and no one would say anything about it.

Who has said anything about the cost of security? This information is common knowledge, whilst the route hasn't been released people are aware it's happening and as far as I know, nobody has said anything about it. Why all the fuss for something that nobodies talking about?


Peter Phillips have also attended royal garden parties. I'm assuming on things like this, it depends on their schedule availability too rather than he's not royal enough.

I can't find any pictures, can you tell me when he's attended?
 
I have read this thread on the carriage ride that you don't like and yet you haven't said really why you are so against it? What is the problem with the carriage ride by Eugenie and Jack? This is not the 1st carriage ride nor will it be the last one either. Is it perhaps because it is what another royal wedding did that maybe it is deems as being copied or what? This is Princess Eugenie of York and she is the granddaughter of HM and the daughter of Prince Andrew of York and Sarah, Duchess of York......she is by birth a blood royal princess.........and all brides deserve what they can have on their wedding day, carriage ride or scooter ride if they want. Some here keep asking for the reasons of your not wanting a carriage ride and no feasible answer yet.....so why? She is as much important to the royal family as all HM's grandchildren are, not just the few who are closer in line to the throne.

Well no one 'deserves' anything, we get what we pay for and that is it so I hope that Eugenie will also pay for what she wants on her wedding day as all other brides have to. The weddings of the Kents BTW are a thing of the past. No way would those kind of weddings be acceptable nowadays.
 
Last edited:
You said you enjoy debating and backing up your opinions @jacqui24. I've simply responded to where I disagree with your objections regarding Eugenie's wedding plans.

In your comeback responses, you keep referencing what others think about the York sisters, etc., and then attempt to deflect and defuse your original strong objections regarding the carriage ride and security costs, by bringing up side issues. For example, I rebutted the side issue of your reference to the Yorks going out to clubs, which you commented on in a negative way. And now, you are suggesting that you didn't bring it up as an issue. At the same time, you are repeating my rebuttal that it's something young people do. In addition, you bring up Harry's youthful propensity for partying, which I also already mentioned in my prior post.

So essentially you are rebutting me with my rebuttal of your original comments. Right, there is no point to this discussion by this point. So you agree there's no legitimate reason to complain about Eugenie's wedding plans. :D Or, we disagree and that's fine too.

And no, I'm not a psychoanalyst, but I do enjoy a reasonable debate that involves addressing the topic, and ending the discussion when there's nothing left to debate.

I have no idea where you are going with all the rebuttal and agreements. It’s pointless. If you want to talk about topic, then talk about topic, stop talking about me. I’ve stated why I think this isn’t a good look cost wise or PR wise.

Just to point out, I said that the press scrutiny will go away once they stop catching them coming out of club as is the case for everyone. You chose to take that as a negative when that’s simply reality. And then brought Harry.

The Kents wedding are a thing of the past. Just like grandchildren of a monarch that’s not from the heir being working royals are a thing of the past. And that was often talked about as no one wants to pay for it. So same applies.
 
Last edited:
Well no one 'deserves' anything, we get what we pay for and that is it so I hope that Eugenie will also pay for what she wants on her wedding day as all other brides have to. The weddings of the Kents BTW are a thing of the past. No way would those kind of weddings be acceptable nowadays.

Eugenie and her family will be paying for her wedding-except for the security.

And the security aspect would be necessary even without the short carriage ride, simply because there will undoubtably be crowds gathered so they need protecting from people intent on causing chaos and destruction. Also, higher profile members of the Royal Family will be attending. If this were years ago the threat might have only been a bomb exploding, now terrorists drive trucks into crowds.

In fact, hoping to catching a glimpse of those higher profile Royals might draw more people. That is not Eugenie’s fault—or responsibility.

Moving on from this particular topic, I hope Eugenie has gorgeous flowers since her future father-in-law is connected to the floral business.
 
Last edited:
The difference: Eugenie is the granddaughter of the REIGNING monarch.

Margaret's children were the niece and nephew of the monarch.

Princess Eugenie is also the first 'princess of the blood royal' to be married since Princess Anne 45 years ago...and maybe the last for some years except for Beatrice, so her wedding is historic for that reason.

I think the resistance to Eugenie having a carriage ride/guests watching her wedding, is coming from her lack of popularity and not really from her position in line to the throne. And a lot of her lack of popularity comes from how she's portrayed in the media and associated with her parents' unfortunate mistakes. Eugenie is fairly involved with charity work...we don't see all of it because it's not publicized in the media. I follow Sarah and Eugenie's Instagram accounts and there are a number of charities Eugenie is consistently involved with. She also works full-time, hasn't been photographed on vacation in a long time, unlike Beatrice, and really hasn't done anything to justify the unpopularity IMO.

All the talk about Eugenie's position compared to Harry's is just being used to justify people's dislike of the Yorks and belief that the Yorks should be relegated to the sidelines while everyone focuses on the Wales family. Would everyone argue the same way if the Yorks happened to be first in line to the throne, while the children of the second son were more popular?
 
Last edited:
All the talk about Eugenie's position compared to Harry's is just being used to justify people's dislike of the Yorks and belief that the Yorks should be relegated to the sidelines while everyone focuses on the Wales family. Would everyone argue the same way if the Yorks happened to be first in line to the throne, while the children of the second son were more popular?

Is it simply the way it works to focus on the core family? While I expect that Harry would be a core member of the Firm as son and brother of monarchs, I fully expect any future children not to be. Actually, some have even argued Harry is irrelevant even though HM’s younger children all continue to have very active profiles even when Charles’ sons are grown.
 
Since it looks like there is a lack of knowledge about just how many charities Eugenie supports or if she even supports any, I think it's necessary to list them here.
She is patron of the: Tate Young Patrons, European School of Osteopathy, Coronet Theatre, Teenage Cancer Trust, Elephant Family, and RNOH'S Redevelopment Appeal

She is an ambassador for: Children in Crisis/Street Child UK, Project O, and the Artemis Council of New Museum

She also is the Co-Founder of the Anti-Slavery Collective
 
Of course, that is a pretty big difference. Eugenie has never been a working royal, her father is NOT the future King.. Harry's is and he will pretty certainly be a working royal, one of the major players in the famil for all his life.. (lets hope)…
Eugenie is alos a bit unlucky in that Harry's usually been pretty popular with the public and she and Bea haven't.. Some of that is due to the baggage that comes from her parents who have both goofed up a lot. But she and Bea could have overcome that, if they'd say decided to be full time charity ladies and secured some press attention for their good works.. but while they both do a bit, they're not that big on it.. and Bea I think hasn't been much of a steady worker at any job...

so she's not popular on her own account, she's seen as the daughter of the "awful Fergie" and she is the daughter of a second son... and It seems likely that when Charles is king, he will confine "working royals" to his own self, his wife and his sons and their wives....

So you seem to be saying that rather than having a career and doing some charity work, if Eugenie had become a lady who lunches and did more charity work people would think better of her? I don’t think so.

I think it is Countessmeout who regularly laments that the only time Eugenie (or her sister’s) charitable endeavors are covered by the press is when they can twist it to be a party or a vacation.

I don’t think a young woman’s wedding plans should be determined by “popularity” or PR value.

I don’t think Charles will be turning his brothers, sister and sister-in-law out to pasture when he becomes King. He’ll need them. His sons and their wives simply aren’t enough people to represent the Royal family.
 
:previous:

Also in this respect a very different profile than her non-royal Phillips cousins.
 
:previous:

Also in this respect a very different profile than her non-royal Phillips cousins.

I am going to disagree. Every now and then someone posts about name recognition for the royals - in and out of the UK. The last I remember is someone on holiday, that asked the random people they met in the UK to name the York girls and/or to describe what they thought about the York girls. They were surprised at how few people knew of them, cared about them, etc.

Just because we on the Forums pay attention to Bea, Eug and (at least in my case) Autumn does not mean most people do. No one I work with could name even Charles' sons if asked.

It's like asking someone who does not give a darn about a sport to describe three details about some stars in that field. Most people do not care.

So when you speak of "profile" I always believe that's a very inexact term.

And I am again off topic. I am quite sure that local merchants will be pleased at the increase in business due to Eug's nuptials. I am thrilled for her and Jack. I am sure she is planning a lovely wedding. I'll look at the pictures. But I will not be comparing her wedding to any others, because it is not a contest. In fact, it is a life commitment far beyond any all the hoo-ha about dresses and attendants and cost. I will of course be happy for the couple. But I will not be measuring the day with a "what someone else did" yardstick. I'll measure their marriage by it's longevity and the love they show for one another over time.
 
I am going to disagree. Every now and then someone posts about name recognition for the royals - in and out of the UK. The last I remember is someone on holiday, that asked the random people they met in the UK to name the York girls and/or to describe what they thought about the York girls. They were surprised at how few people knew of them, cared about them, etc.

Just because we on the Forums pay attention to Bea, Eug and (at least in my case) Autumn does not mean most people do. No one I work with could name even Charles' sons if asked.

It's like asking someone who does not give a darn about a sport to describe three details about some stars in that field. Most people do not care.

..........


Yeah I agree with this...99 percent of the people in the U.S. I've ever chatted with, and the BRF have come up in general conversation, something going on like a wedding/birth/death etc, have no clue nor do they care. In fact they think it's weird that an American would care or be interested in them.


LaRae
 
Yeah I agree with this...99 percent of the people in the U.S. I've ever chatted with, and the BRF have come up in general conversation, something going on like a wedding/birth/death etc, have no clue nor do they care. In fact they think it's weird that an American would care or be interested in them.


LaRae

This is a British royal wedding. I don't think whether Americans know or care about the couple has anything to do with it. :ermm:

When the daughter or son of a former president marries, do Americans think many people in the UK or other countries care or notice?
 
This is a British royal wedding. I don't think whether Americans know or care about the couple has anything to do with it. :ermm:

When the daughter or son of a former president marries, do Americans think many people in the UK or other countries care or notice?


I agree though I think it is a fair question when discussing it being aired globally on TV. The weddings of president's children aren't aired over the world. So while I do want to see Eugenie's wedding... blocking off huge sections of TV for it might seem a bit much when most don't even know who she is.

That said, I don't get the complaint on her carriage ride and the cost of security. She is a blood royal princess and the granddaughter of the monarch. Why shouldn't she have it?
 
This is a British royal wedding. I don't think whether Americans know or care about the couple has anything to do with it. :ermm:

When the daughter or son of a former president marries, do Americans think many people in the UK or other countries care or notice?

Well yes it does if you are talking about viewership and interest needed to support it being televised outside the UK etc.

However I was responding to what another poster said.


LaRae
 
I am going to disagree. Every now and then someone posts about name recognition for the royals - in and out of the UK. The last I remember is someone on holiday, that asked the random people they met in the UK to name the York girls and/or to describe what they thought about the York girls. They were surprised at how few people knew of them, cared about them, etc.

Just because we on the Forums pay attention to Bea, Eug and (at least in my case) Autumn does not mean most people do. No one I work with could name even Charles' sons if asked.

It's like asking someone who does not give a darn about a sport to describe three details about some stars in that field. Most people do not care.

So when you speak of "profile" I always believe that's a very inexact term.

And I am again off topic. I am quite sure that local merchants will be pleased at the increase in business due to Eug's nuptials. I am thrilled for her and Jack. I am sure she is planning a lovely wedding. I'll look at the pictures. But I will not be comparing her wedding to any others, because it is not a contest. In fact, it is a life commitment far beyond any all the hoo-ha about dresses and attendants and cost. I will of course be happy for the couple. But I will not be measuring the day with a "what someone else did" yardstick. I'll measure their marriage by it's longevity and the love they show for one another over time.
Looks like the word profile has a different meaning to you than to me. I wasn't talking about whether they are recognized by people (who don't even know the future king! In that case the argument would be that William has the same profile as Zara Phillips) But about their role as members of the royal family. Peter and Zara do not have public profile as members of the royal family, they don't take on lots of honorary roles as members of the royal family (the only exception I can think of is something Canada related) while their princess cousins do.
 
To be frank, a York Princess could discover a cure for Cancer, and PLENTY would still find her detestable, solely because of her parentage .

NO amount of 'good deeds' will alter their attitude.. EVER.
 
Let's look at this carriage ride thing from a totally different angle. Leave Eugenie and Jack out of it and primarily focus on the security.

This security will most likely be handled by the local Windsor law enforcement department. I know that for Harry and Meghan's wedding they beefed it up with the help of the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard but I do not know if this is the case for this wedding.

Are the LEOs in Windsor prepared for this? I would think they are. They handle crowd control just about every single day in Windsor. There are quite a few major events that happen yearly in the area and the ones that come to mind right off the bat would be Garter Day, Ascot Week and The Windsor Horse Show that draw immense crowds each year. There are events listed that happen every day at Windsor Castle such as the changing of the guard.

So, a short carriage ride by Eugenie and Jack through some public areas of Windsor, proper, is a drop in the bucket for them. They're quite adept at handing any and all events that occur just because Windsor Castle is located there.

When we look at it this way, this carriage ride is just a small blip in a day where their LEOs handle bigger, badder and more intense crowds. Harry and Meghan's carriage ride was something they were well prepared for ahead of time and this one for Eugenie and Jack is going to be on a much smaller scale. It won't be a disruption at all but just another crowd control issue.
 
Le
When we look at it this way, this carriage ride is just a small blip in a day where their LEOs handle bigger, badder and more intense crowds. Harry and Meghan's carriage ride was something they were well prepared for ahead of time and this one for Eugenie and Jack is going to be on a much smaller scale. It won't be a disruption at all but just another crowd control issue.

i'd say that it is very much a security issue. Even if Eugenie is not well known, as a royal she IS still a royal and they are not going to mess around with her security on a public occasion like this.. so I think that there will be a heavy police presence, security experts will be involved.. it will all cost quite a bit.
 
i'd say that it is very much a security issue. Even if Eugenie is not well known, as a royal she IS still a royal and they are not going to mess around with her security on a public occasion like this.. so I think that there will be a heavy police presence, security experts will be involved.. it will all cost quite a bit.

Wouldn't that also apply to the Windsor Horse Show when the Queen attends just about every day or Garter Day when there's a slew of royals attending and possibly even foreign ones? Ascot Week always has had a beefed up security force.

Just saying that the town of Windsor is well prepared security wise for this kind of thing. Its what they do. Its not throwing them for a loop. Its not an anomaly for Windsor but something that goes with the flow of Windsor itself.
 
Wouldn't that also apply to the Windsor Horse Show when the Queen attends just about every day or Garter Day when there's a slew of royals attending and possibly even foreign ones? Ascot Week always has had a beefed up security force.

Just saying that the town of Windsor is well prepared security wise for this kind of thing. Its what they do. Its not throwing them for a loop. Its not an anomaly for Windsor but something that goes with the flow of Windsor itself.

but this is an extra day. Police cost a lot of money, if they are called in from other areas... Its one thing to pay for the queen's security, even thogh many people aren't too keen on it.. and another to pay for security for a granddaugther whom few people know or follow..
 
Personally, I would leave the decision on what the security "costs" to the departments that are going to be paying for the "extra" security. Its not like the Windsor law enforcement department sits down and itemizes what each and every overtime paycheck would look like or how many extra law enforcement officers have to be bussed in from London or itemize the wear and tear on the equipment and the gas to fuel the transportation and then present a lump sum for the the carriage ride to the Queen demanding payment.

What the taxpayers pay for Windsor security is for Windsor security to dole out as they deem fit and proper for the event. Just like the Sovereign Grant, a certain figure is deemed appropriate on a yearly basis and that's what they have to work with. I would imagine its the same for the Metropolitan Police and Scotland Yard and Windsor law enforcement. Its part and parcel what comes with the job. There's no pick and choosing what is "appropriate" or not or a measuring of "importance" due to the royal or even anything personally coming into it. It may play a part but isn't the total overall picture. Assessment is made of a need to ensure the safety of the public and the VIPs that may or may not be a part of it.

Actually, I imagine that if, by chance, there is chatter of that leads to the belief that there is a chance of impending harm to *anyone* (I believe there are active threat levels in play), Windsor law enforcement would beef up their security even without that carriage ride. Its what they do. They're paid to protect and serve no matter what the situation is.
 
Well Jiminy Cricket, I must have wedding fever because I’m excited for this lovely couple. I’d love if it was televised but will be happy with any little snippet of their day.
 
Oh me too. I'm thoroughly hooked on any pomp and pageantry and ceremony that the British provide us with. Its what they do better than anyone else. :D
 
Oh me too. I'm thoroughly hooked on any pomp and pageantry and ceremony that the British provide us with. Its what they do better than anyone else. :D

Ditto!!!!!!
 
I have deleted the more off topic and/or argumentative posts.
Please remember that this thread is to discuss the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank. It is not the place to discuss the future of the monarchy, how much the British taxpayers pay for the monarchy, how much American taxpayers pay for their President, the titles of the Queen's grandchildren, or how much the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex cost. It is also not the place to discuss the popularity of The Duke of York, Sarah, Duchess of York, or Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York, or the careers and charity work done by Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.


That said, it is also time to move on from the back and forth arguing about how much the security for the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank will cost, or who will be paying for it.
 
Last edited:
I hope for a little televising of Eugenie's wedding. With all the senior Royals in attendance there will be security regardless. A carriage ride will be sweet to see and televising doesn't lead to additional security. Coping safely with crowds gathering outside (due to no photographers) adds to preparation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom