Royal wedding discussion - Princess Eugenie & Jack Brooksbank

There is a very amusing episode of the show “Episodes” about celebrities being paid to attend events such as the birthday party of an international war criminal. Not that the royals have to pay people…

The Windsors have paid a price for their decision decades ago to “humanize” the monarchy and let the general public have more access to their private lives. Now some people expect them to behave like the middle class and others go nuts if they don’t adhere to “royal tradition.” In days of yore, Charles would have been expected to marry a suitable princess and produce heirs, but would have been allowed to conduct another life with his mistress(es) on the side. His grandfather was only able to marry a member of the British aristocracy for love because he wasn’t the heir.

I was not a fan of Diana, and the degree to which people idolize her drives me crazy. I don’t think her example is anything to emulate. Luckily her sons seem to have married women who are intelligent and emotionally stable, and good matches for them.

Love matches, it would seem. But yes, suitable. I still sometimes wonder what the elder Windsors see in Meghan. Just how it is she seems to have charmed them. Other than the bridal couple, one of my favorite pictures from Friday is the Queen, off to the side, just smiling.

Well…as a cynic…

I think Meghan was lucky that Prince William and Kate have produced 3 children. This makes it extremely unlikely that Harry will ever become king. If Meghan had showed up 10 years ago, I think “the firm” would have been much less enthusiastic. There are rumors…I’ve no idea how accurate…that when Chelsey Davy dumped Harry he gave serious thought to resigning his position in the royal family. He felt he’d never meet someone he loved who would put up with living in a goldfish bowl.

According to the British press–or at least some parts of it–there is a lot of friction between Andrew and Charles. Allegedly, they never liked each other when they were kids. Charles LOATHES Fergie and reportedly always has.

But more recently, a lot of the friction is about how “the royal family” is defined. Princess Eugenie has a day job. She is NOT a “working royal,” i.e., she isn’t paid a salary to do royal things. Thus, a lot of Brits think it’s completely unfair that the taxpayers paid for her wedding, which included 800+ guests. In part this is because Eugenie doesn’t “do” all the royal hosting stuff–Princess Anne actually does more than anyone else, BTW. It’s also because her wedding wasn’t expected to bring in all the “cash” that Kate and William’s and Meghan and Harry’s did.

Andrew reportedly feels very strongly that his daughters Eugenie and Beatrice should be treated as royalty and given all the prerogatives of being royal–including royal weddings paid for by the British taxpayers. Charles supposedly wants to trim the royal budget by cutting off everyone outside his immediate family, i.e., Camilla, William & Kate and children, Meghan & Harry and any future children.

This time around…so the press says…it was the Queen who stepped in. Allegedly, Eugenie is one of her favorite grandchildren, if not her very favorite grandchild. I suspect–may be wrong–that part of this is precisely because Eugenie had divorced parents; Fergie’s antics were the sort of thing that would really humiliate her young daughters. Eugenie struggled with surgeries. She isn’t all that pretty. She apparently genuinely loves her grandma and is much closer to her than William and Harry are.

Charles prefers his brother Edward, in large part because Edward IS a working royal–he does a lot–AND acquiesced in being shunted aside. Thus, he had a much smaller wedding–considerably smaller than Eugenie’s. Upon his marriage, he became an earl, NOT a duke. His children are styled “Lady” and “viscount,” unlike Andrew’s. So allegedly while Edward and his wife Sophie are working royals,their children won’t be. Rumors say though that if Prince Philip dies before the Queen, she’ll give Edward HIS title…which allegedly Charles is adamantly opposed to.

As an American of mostly Irish-Catholic descent, I think it’s unreal that the British taxpayers had to pay for this. Hey, I enjoyed the pics and wish Eugenie and Jack all the best–and I mean that sincerely. They seem like a very nice young couple. I think a lot of the celebrities who were invited were invited to help Jack in his day job as an ambassador for a brand of liquor.

Rumor has it that while Jack has NOT been given a royal title, Eugenie is going to insist she still be called Princess.

Again, I wish Eugenie and Jack all the best. I mean that.

And a lot of rumors and speculation followed. But to clear up an inaccuracy in the post:

It’s not hers to give. Titles only merge with the Crown when they become extinct. If Philip predeceases E2R, Charles inherits the dukedom. Charles needs to be King to grant the title to Edward, and that was made clear all along.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/royal_wedding/373120.stm

OF course, that is what was said almost 20 years ago. What will really happen when/if Charles becomes King is guesswork. Remember, he also said Camilla would not be styled as Queen Consort, and I’m betting the she will be when it comes time.

You’re right, but…according to Wikipedia…

[quote]
Edward was created Earl of Wessex, with the subsidiary title of Viscount Severn (derived from the Welsh roots of the Countess’s family),[27][28] breaking from a tradition whereby sons of the sovereign were created royal dukes. It was however revealed that the Queen wishes that he be elevated from the rank of Earl to Duke of Edinburgh after that dukedom, held by Prince Philip since 1947, reverts to the Crown2, and for his children to be styled as the children of an Earl, rather than as prince/ss and royal highness.[30] [unquote]

Do you like the gown Eugenie wore to the evening reception? I don’t dislike it but the boob emphasis I find a little odd.

https://people.com/royals/princess-eugenie-royal-wedding-official-portraits/

I have no interest in getting involved with royal/tabloid gossip but… I think Eugenie is pretty.

The royals as a bunch aren’t particularly attractive but I think Eugenie is pretty shrug

@jonri That falls under “If it’s on the internet, it must be true.” :smiley:
YMMV, but I’ll trust the traditional news reports of the day, the wording of the 1947 Letters Patent, and Debrett’s:
https://www.debretts.com/the-royal-family/earl-of-wessex/

over “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

Nope, don’t like the evening dress. Sort of Disneyish, like it is sculptured.

The boob emphasis is odd, but IMO it is just bad shadowing on the photo…

I think Meghan was lucky that Prince William and Kate have produced 3 children<<<<<<<<<<<

IMO it was totally orchestrated. No way was that luck. I don’t think the markle scenario would exist without the third baby. I hope it was worth it for Kate.

The reception dress was pretty hideous, but that was also a terrible photo - her face doesn’t look good in it either. I think Eugenie is quite pretty, and she looked particularly fresh faced and radiant in all the photos except that one in the reception dress.

Omg.

Sara was quoted years ago saying she would never offer advice on what they choose to wear. Not that she has a great sense of style.

I disagree with @Sybylla about Kate and William’s third baby. Kate is one of three children from a very happy family. I wasn’t surprised at all when she became pregnant with her third.

One thing I was pleased to see was Eugenie curtseying to the Queen. The tv cameras were panning the crowd at Harry’s wedding and missed Megan doing her curtsey.

@doschicos , yes, the boob thing with the dress is very unflattering. I’m sure it is shadows, but still.

Wow. Tough crowd. Agree that the photo, ad perhaps the dress was a bit unflattering on top, I wonder if the back is open too, like the wedding dress, and like the tribute to the rose in color and embroidery. And FWIW, a somewhat similarly styled one isn’t bad and costs less than many of the hideous numbers in the “expensive and ugly” thread. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a23653439/princess-eugenie-second-wedding-dress-photos/. And with a tiny waist like that, can’t blame her for wanting to share it.

Dunno, to me, the biggest thing I notice is the huge smiles of the couple!

I thought Eugenie’s wedding dress was lovely and I admired her choice to display her scars. My two best friends in junior high underwent scoliosis surgery back in the days when a child stayed in the hospital for months following the procedure. I was a bridesmaid for one of them years later and remember how she cried because her mother wouldn’t let her wear a dress that showed her scars (which were much more prominent than Eugenie’s because the surgery has gotten better). She was 21 when she married so her mother’s opinion and checkbook mattered. Her mom didn’t want to be reminded of that episode in their lives.

Wow she does have a tiny waist. I loved the wedding dress.

I’m sorry this apparently nice gal gets such critique, but other pictures dont show a tiny waist. For this one photo (and I can’t find others,) they should have realized the shadowing. And what that fabric does to “boob placement.” She would have needed to be seriously trussed up.

Maybe it was gorgeous IRL. I feel like going with that explanation for right now.