Princess Eugenie is totally fine with Jack Brooksbank not accepting a title

V&A Summer Party

Princess Eugenie’s wedding is fast approaching. I’m still looking forward to it, to seeing the photos, especially the pics of her wedding gown. Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank’s wedding will be held at Windsor Castle, and we recently learned that they’re inviting 1200 random people to the Windsor Castle grounds to watch the arrivals and cheer Eugenie on. Those random people will be selected via a lottery system, which is a lot like what Harry and Meghan did with their wedding. The vibe I’m getting is that Eugenie, her father and perhaps the Queen all want this to be a big fairytale “royal wedding,” perhaps one of the last of this generation of royals. The thing about it is… once Eugenie marries Jack, her life will much more non-royal. According to the Daily Mail, Jack doesn’t even want to take a title if the Queen offers him one.

Ahead of their hotly anticipated wedding in October, Princess Eugenie’s father the Duke of York has officially declared that her ‘commoner’ fiance Jack Brooksbank will remain a man of the people after they marry. A representative for the Yorks tells me that Jack, 32, will not be granted the vacant title Earl of Northallerton – as has been whispered in recent weeks – meaning the Queen’s granddaughter will be known as HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

But, say chums, Eugenie, 28, is not bothered one way or the other, and has actually resisted special treatment. Says a source: ‘Eugenie couldn’t care less about titles and is perfectly happy to be Mrs Brooksbank.’

Jack, a former bar manager, whose great-grandfather was an equerry to Queen Mary, is from one of the oldest and wealthiest families in Britain, even if they don’t have a title. Meanwhile, Eugenie is considered by Buckingham Palace to be a ‘private individual’ and her name doesn’t appear in the court circular.

[From The Daily Mail]

It was not my impression at all that Jack came from one of the wealthiest families in Britain. Granted, I’m sure there’s money and yes, I suspect that Jack is from an “old family” with all of those “old family connections.” He went to the right schools and he knows the right people. But I still don’t believe that Jack is all that wealthy himself. He’s an ambassador for Casamigos Tequila, for the love of God. So is it a smart move to refuse a title? I don’t know. I think the Duke of York will be very disappointed.

Princess Eugenie of York, Jack Brooksbank at The Summer Party presented by Serpentine Galleries and Chanel in London

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

125 Responses to “Princess Eugenie is totally fine with Jack Brooksbank not accepting a title”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. dd says:

    Beatrice won’t be happy if this is the last big wedding of her generation. It would be the Duke of York and Sarah who will be disappointed that he won’t take a title. Prince Charles has been making decisions and doing a lot of things that the Queen would normally do. Rumor is Charles wants a slimmed down Monarchy which is why in part he has not allowed Beatrice and Eugenie to join the Royal Gravy Train. Andrew and Charles don’t get along when the Queen goes Andrew will not get away with what he does now. Beatrlce seems to work very little like mother like daughter. I hope Eugenies dress is nice her and Beatrice have worn a lot of bad outfits.

    • Julia says:

      I still don’t get why Eugenie gets the flash wedding. I’ve always thought that they were reserved for the children of monarchs or in Harry’s case the child of the future monarch. Neither of Margaret’s kids got big public weddings, nor Anne’s children. Andrew can’t stand not being mega important and he wants all the royal trappings for his kids too.

      • InquisitiveNewt says:

        Andrew is an absolute swine. Was once temping at a building he visited and he ordered us back to work and clapped his hands, as if we were trained monkeys. He oozes undeserved privilege.

  2. Eleonor says:

    My bitchy me has the theory that nobody offers him any title, and this is only pr

    • Betsy says:

      That seems more likely, honestly.

    • Red Snapper says:

      The bitch in me hopes he *does* get a title and Carole Middleton’s head explodes!! She tried hard for the Earl and Countess of Bucklebury.

      • Jan90067 says:

        Why? It’s not the same thing. Her daughter married in and got her title. Not that I think Jack is entitled to a title in the least, but he is marrying a princess like Carole’s daughter married a prince. Now, Eugenie is not in the direct line of heir as is William, so there’s your kicker.

        Personally, I think it’s Sarah, and especially Pedo Andy who are pushing for a title, as they don’t want their daughter to be seen as “lesser”, even though in the hierarchy, she is.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They tried for titles? I think someone else said that before but I don’t remember the details.

      • c8c8c8 says:

        She and Michael will get titles later.

      • Tina says:

        The Queen doesn’t play that. Charles might be more amenable.

    • Milla says:

      Well… It could go either way, but i wanna believe that they are honest. Besides, it’s just a title. Many not so good people have it. Bea and Eug deserve to be left alone, they are victims of public scrutiny since births

    • magnoliarose says:

      Sounds more likely to me too.

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      Yes, I had that thought, too, Eleonor. Andrew has reportedly been pretty shady in his personal life, so that might affect the royal luster of his progeny.

    • Masamf says:

      That’s exactly what I think. They’re trying to make it look like Jack was offered a title but he refused, which is very misleading. From all the articles I read, it seems they (Andrew and Sarah) expected TQ would offer Jack a title but she never actually did. And it was left to Andrew to announce that no title was coming but AFA Euge is concerned, she loves her man title or not.

  3. April May says:

    Personally I think it’s the right decision not to have one. Eugenie and Beatrice get enough sh*t for having titles and not doing royal work, if she had another title they’d just get even more hassle.

  4. notasugarhere says:

    Eugenie doesn’t lose her own title when she marries. She will continue to be HRH Princess Eugenie Mrs. Jack B, like Princess Alexandra is HRH Princess Alexandra Mrs. Ogilvy.

    • Honey says:

      And they and their children will live royal adjacent much like Zara and Mike and Peter and Savanah. So, it’s no big deal. She’s a blood princess after all. Lol.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Well it isn’t like Andrew can complain she’s losing a title on marriage therefore Jack must be given one. She’s always going to be HRH Princess Eugenie whether she marries or not. That’s how the system works when you’re a born princess.

        In some other royal families, the people lower down are “Your Highness” not “Your Royal Highness” but the BRF haven’t taken that up yet.

  5. Mego says:

    Sounds like counter pr to the Jan Moir article – Eug is down to earth and not into the royal trappings etc.

    • magnoliarose says:

      My thoughts exactly.

    • CeeCee says:

      Good for him! Titles are absurd in 2018.

      I wonder why the American born and raised Meghan didnt reject a title? A royal title does seem counter to everything she believed in her life up to that point.

      • Patty says:

        This Celebitchy post, article isn’t about the former Ms. Meghan Markle, but all the same I don’t see how her not declining a title is antithesis to any of her beliefs…….

        Is it necessary to bring up MM in every comment section though.

      • Antonym says:

        I’m sure LAK, or one of the other posters more knowledgeable in royalty, can provide more details, but as I understand it Megan did not receive a title specific to her. I think her titles are all based on her husband. Duccal titles pass through the male line I believe (patriarchy). So the title went to Harry and because she’s Harry’s wife the Duchess is attached to her.

        For Eugenie and Jack it is different. The husband doesn’t have any title derivation from the wife. It only goes husband to wife, not vice versa (patriarchy strikes again).

        Again, there are other posters, like LAK, who are much more knowledgeable than I am on this topic. I always learn something new when reading their comments.

      • Ardnamurchan says:

        Correct, Antonym.
        In lieu of LAK, I’ll have the temerity to confirm that you’re quite right. Meghan has no title of her own to ‘refuse’.
        The UK peerage is still patriarchal: title and status are derived from the husband, not the wife. Even if Angelina had been British and able to use her honorary Damehood, Brad would not have become Sir Brad, lol.
        But VB will be Lady Beckham if David ever gets his longed-for knighthood.
        AMOF, this is currently under court challenge by a clutch of daughters of peers. If they succeed it will bring the peerage in line with the Charlotte law which changed the Crown succession to remove discrimination against daughters.

    • Karen says:

      Not so sure how down to earth she is. She had the birthday party and was Snow White. She had little people brought in to play the dwarfs. Although she must have good friends. Not many pictures out to shame her.

  6. perplexed says:

    If Eugenie and Beatrice want to do charity work but Charles or whoever won’t let them (for whatever reasons they’ve laid out for a slimmed down monarchy), is it not possible for them to volunteer somewhere the way regular people do on their own time?

    • Murphy says:

      In Eugenie’s case-she does work full time but does fit it in here and there-just doesn’t always get tons of press.
      In Bea’s case-her work seems to be less 9-5, and I think she could do more.

      • perplexed says:

        I guess I’m baffled as to why they would need to be part of a monarchy to actually do charity work. A lot of peasants (rich and poor) do charity work. I’m not saying they have to, but if they claim it’s an interest of theirs but they’re not allowed to, I guess I don’t see why they just don’t do their own thing like….every other peasant celebrity on the planet. If Jennifer Garner can do it, I’m sure they can too.

      • Rhys says:

        @ perplexed – maybe because if they start doing charity it would mean someone would need to pay for security at the very least. If they are not royal they would have to pay for that and other things out of their own pocket.

    • Addie says:

      Both girls do have charities they support. And their expectation – or rather their father’s – was they’d be on the Royal Gravy Train for life. But they are surplus to Charles’s requirements and his grand plan of slimming down the monarchy. I wonder if that will mean they will take less money from the public? Probably not.

    • Jamie says:

      I thought they did. I seem to recall seeing something about Eug being the patron of the hospital that operated on her as a child and Bea being the patron of a charity that helps kids with dyslexia.

      • minx says:

        Forgive me for repeating this story, but my niece is the director of a domestic violence center in NYC and Eugenie visited last year and spent quite a lot of time there. I don’t know if DV is a charitable interest of Eug’s or if she somehow makes some income off of working in it. I’ve said that my niece spoke really well of Eugenie and sent me a cute picture of the two of them.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They already do. In fact, for the first few years of the W&K marriage, B&E were connected to more charities than Kate was. Mike Tindall also does a fair amount of charity work.

      • perplexed says:

        So, if they’re doing charity wok of their own accord, what does it matter if they are “no longer part of” a streamlined monarchy? It still seems they can do what they like. There were times people were making it sound like they were banned from doing charity, which sounded strange to me.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It does matter and it doesn’t matter. They can do what they want to a point. Peter and his selling of wedding photos to Hello limited Zara (and everyone else’s) ability to do so. Zara was said to be steamed out that. Given she married a famous man, there would have been more money-making opportunities for Zara and Mike there. Be royal adjacent, earn your own living, but don’t make any money based on being royal adjacent.

        With the whole Counselor of State thing, there are limits. One of those limits is, they are required to live in the UK. If HM and Andrew pass in quick succession, Beatrice is required by law to move back to the UK and Eugenie is required to stay there. People would scream about B quitting her job, but unless they can let her work from the UK, she’d be legally required to do so. This isn’t something she is allowed to politely refuse.

        That’s where it gets sticky. B&E have to earn a living, but they have to earn a living in a way that cannot be seen as vulnerable to influence from outside forces. They have a required role of being advisors to the monarch and standing in for the monarch for a variety of things. That’s why it makes more sense to me if Beatrice at least was to be a working royal. She’s the one odds are is going to have to be a Counselor for 10+ years of her life.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They’re both at the UN today for the 2018 Nexus Global Summit. Eugenie is chairing a meeting against human trafficking.

    • Ardnamurchan says:

      The charity work isn’t royal work and doesn’t appear on the court circular.
      For example, all Harry’s Sentebale events and African trips are private. He wasn’t representing the Crown and so they don’t appear in the court circular.
      His and MM’s trip to Ireland, Trooping the Colour, Anzac Day etc, were on behalf of the Crown, representing Her Maj.
      No one is stopping the York girls from doing charity work, but it’s rich-and-privileged-girl work not Royal work.

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      Eugenie was just in NYC as the director of a group dedicated to ending modern-day slavery. She led a meeting and by all accounts is very involved in the work, not just a know-nothing figurehead. She and Bea both do lots of charity work, just not on behalf of the crown.

  7. Murphy says:

    Yeah, you got it at the end there–Eugenie might not mind but her father certainly WILL.

    That’s if HM is able to stand up to Charles and offer Jack one in the first place.

  8. Snap Happy says:

    The part about Eugenie not caring about titles seems kind of offensive to me. I’m an American so just looking from
    The outside, but 1. It seems not true. That whole family is about hierarchy. I think they all care about titles. 2. If you don’t care about the title aren’t you saying you don’t care about the whole insitution it stems from? Isn’t it nicer to say Eugenie understand she will not get a title?

    I’m split on him receiving the title thing too. He prob shouldn’t get one, but I always feel like the Queen should have more sympathy for the York girls. She was them. Her father was the heir. It’s less divine right these days and more a matter of circumstance.

    • perplexed says:

      Would anyone really want to be the Queen though? She’s had to live a ridiculously boring life in service to duty. And, yes, she has a lot of privileges, but she didn’t have the freedom to do as she liked like everyone else in her family has had. In a way it’s better to be lower down the line, get the privilege, but not have to live out a life of duty the way the Queen has.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has made interesting comments about this, including being required to be a member of a particular religion. They’re in her interviews available on YouTube. iirc one is Queen Margrethe’s Red Thread.

        There are benefits to being lower down and hindrances. Didn’t do Princess Margaret a lot of good.

        You are an enormous gossip/press target but you still have to make a living. Martha-Louise of Norway has struggled with this for awhile. She’s done everything from writing about angels to designing jewelry to now running a YouTube channel about horses.

      • perplexed says:

        There are hindrances, but the Queen has the most difficult job (within that set). And I have my doubts most people could weather what she has over several decades of a very long reign without having some kind of breakdown. Every mistake your family makes reflects on you as the company/CEO head, even if you had nothing to do with it. I don’t think it’s a job most people would like.

      • Vicky Tyler says:

        Great comment. I was just thinking the other day how horrible Queen Elizabeth must have felt when she first found out Prince Philip was a cheater and realized she couldn’t ever divorce him because of her position. And she isn’t free to live her life on her own terms which is sad despite her wealth and privilege.

    • Snap Happy says:

      Her father *wasn’t the heir.

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, she’s in the position she’s in now because her uncle abdicated. She felt her uncle abdicating hastened her father’s death.

      • dogmom says:

        Wasn’t her father technically his brother’s heir, since his brother had no children?

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was always expected that David would marry an aristocrat and have a family. he wasn’t a 80 year old bachelor without wife and kids. He was only 42 when he became king, abdicated the same year.

      • Tina says:

        That said, everyone knew David was a rotter. George V wrote a letter expressing his hopes that nothing would come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne.

  9. Maria says:

    I think it’s probably true. I mean Angus Ogilvy didn’t get a title and I don’t believe Princess Anne’s first husband nor the second for that matter got titles. And neither princess Alexandra’s children got titles nor did Princess Anne’s. Eugenie seems more down to earth to me than her sister or her parents, and she does have a full-time job.

    • Jan90067 says:

      But that was by choice. Anne’s first husband, at least, WAS offered the title and they turned it down. This is turn, made the children “commoners” even though they were children of a royal princess, as title passes through the male line.

      • Nic919 says:

        A spouse of a grandchild not in the direct line will not be getting a title. This was never a discussion. If Eugenie’s husband gets one, then the same needs to be done for Beatrice and for Louise. There’s no way the Queen would open up that bucket of worms. The only spouse who might get that offer in the future would be Charlotte’s future spouse.

      • Murphy says:

        No not necessarily for Louise. She already has been living as a Lady instead of a Princess so I would never expect her spouse to be offered a title.

      • notasugarhere says:

        We don’t know what’s going to happen when Prince Philip passes. Edward might be granted the title right away, they might wait until after HM has passed, or Charles might reneg on the plan and withhold the title. Louise and James might also have a change in title at that point.

      • Murphy says:

        Regardless of what Edward’s title becomes-he can control what his children get. If he becomes Duke in a month-they will still be Lady and Earl (presumably) because that was their plan all along.

      • Jan90067 says:

        But technically, Ed’s kids *can* still be titled prince/cess as they are grandchildren, in the male line, of a monarch. Ed and Sophie *choose* not to use it for their kids, but they can always use it as one of their titles, as far as I understand.

  10. Bitsy says:

    Being an ambassador for a liquor company sounds exactly like someone with family money and family connections. Those party-for-work,cush-type jobs usually go to someones well-connected kid and not the working class kids with a ton of debt. Where I live, there are thousands of $100k starter jobs for recent grads with the right look and right connections: sales counselors in model homes, medical sales reps, beer and spirits sales reps, etc… They just take people to dinner and schmooze ans make great money. Like Royals, no?… So I totally believe this guy has his own funds.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Exactly. That’s the kind of job you have when you dont actually NEED a job. I have no problem believing he comes from and has access to old family wealth.

      • Jan90067 says:

        But Jack was a bar tender before, while they were just dating. JUST before they got engaged, he got this “ambassadorship” to Casa Migos, and low and behold, the Clooneys got a wedding invite. Funny how that worked out!

        Wonder if the Clooneys dangled that FOR the invite…?

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Jan90067 I honestly dont care about the Clooneys being to the wedding or the how’s and whys. I know that seemed to be a big story but I honestly just dont understand why. Regular people invite everyone and their mother to their weddings. And I dont care if they “dangled” for it either. If you or I had the chance to go we certainly would have jumped at the opportunity to do so as well.

      • notasugarhere says:

        A lot of fuss being made over it being a “celebrity” wedding. Out of 600 guests, maybe 40 were recognizable.

      • perplexed says:

        40 recognizable faces is quite a lot, I think, especially for a non-Hollywood-industry related wedding. I don’t think that’s a negative or a positive or anything at all about it, but objectively speaking, I think that’s a high number. And some of them were the big guns, like Oprah and Serena Williams.

        At most celebrity weddings, usually the only person I recognize is Jennifer Aniston. Gwyneth Paltrow is probably hoping she has that many at her upcoming wedding, but I have my doubts she’ll come close.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Given the bride worked as a television actress, 40 out of 600 is a small number to me. Especially as many of the “famous” were the groom’s friends or his father’s friends. People we can expect to see at Eugenie and Jack’s wedding because they’re friends with them too (Carrie Mulligan, Ed Sheeran, etc.). Idris Elba was there as he’s close with Charles because of Prince’s Trust.

      • magnoliarose says:

        He may simply be upper middle class with connections. I don’t know anything about him but his job is the equivalent of editor at large for heiresses at fashion magazines.

      • perplexed says:

        “Especially as many of the “famous” were the groom’s friends or his father’s friends”

        I never claimed the friends were Meghan’s. I’m saying that 40 is a large number, imo, regardless of who they were affiliated with. Even if celebrities show up at Eugenie’s wedding, 40 is still a fairly large number, imo. Is that a negative? I never said that either. It’s simply acknowledging that famous people showed up and very few actors themselves rival that number at their weddings, although Gwyneth Paltrow probably wishes she could.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t think it is positive or negative, merely a reflection of their lives. William and Harry went to posh schools with people who became famous. Some are personal friends, others aren’t. Some of them have become ambassadors for Sentebale.

        I was surprised a few years ago to see Beatrice show up at the wedding of Prince Amadeo of Belgium. After more thought it made sense. Behind the scenes, many of these royal families have personal ties we rarely see in public. Former Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Queen Margrethe of Denmark stay at BP when they visit London, and have vacationed at Balmoral in the summer.

    • Maria says:

      Wasn’t the company founded by George Clooney? I thought I read that somewhere. In Jack’s defense though, he did work first a a server, then as a bar manager which would have given knowledge about different wines, so in that sense he would have earned the position.

      • perplexed says:

        Sounds like he’s in hospitality, which is an industry in need of people in the UK.

        He likely has some kind of certification for his wine knowledge. He would be expected to know what pairs with what and how the wines taste and smell. Camilla and him probably have stuff to talk about with each other.

    • Algernon says:

      Exactly. I’ve worked with brand ambassadors at work and except for a couple that are chefs, they are to a one wealthy, connected sprouts whose “job” is to show up places and smile for Instagram while holding a bottle of whatever brand they rep. At least in Jack’s case he seems to have a sincere interest in restaurants/hospitality, as he started as a server in a restaurant. And of course Casamigos would want a posh guy for their UK rep, it immediately associates their brand with top tier social events and class exclusivity (look into how Coke advertised when it was a new thing, all their models were socialites, and today Coke is the preferred soft drink of rich people).

      As for the title, after Antony Armstrong-Jones, I don’t think a man will marry into the RF and get a title again, and I don’t think Charles’ plan to streamline the monarchy is a bad thing. They have survived this long by being flexible, after all.

    • grumpy says:

      on another site it says he is descended from Earls and royal hangers-on, so I bet he is rich:

      “Although, not having a title he nevertheless has quite a lineage counting among his ancestors Stamp Brooksbank who was a Governor of the Bank of England in the middle of the eighteenth century. Like Princess Eugenie, he can also trace his ancestors back to Thomas Coke, 2nd Earl of Leicester. In more recent times his great-grandfather, Sir John Spencer Coke, was Gentleman Usher to King George VI”.

      • Jan90067 says:

        You can have great “lineage” and be broke. All some have are titles, having lost the family seat (home) and $$$$ over generations.

  11. Reese says:

    This wedding is so over the top for her. What a waste of money. I get she’s a blood princess, but that does that entitle this extravagance and excess? A lottery? Please. Can’t believe people would waste their own money getting there to see this nonsense. Andrew is a sleaze and hopefully Charles will cut him off.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She and her fiance have many friends. She’s marrying in the church on the estate where she grew up. The estate where she and her sister will inherit the lease on Royal Lodge when their father passes, so where she’ll likely live and raise her own children part of the time. In the church where two of her cousins and many members of her family have married in the past. One of those cousins, Peter, was lower down in the line of succession than she is and also had a carriage drive.

      Are they supposed to get married with just the two of them in a registry office simply because you don’t like her or her father?

      They’re not selling tickets and making money. They’re offering free tickets in a lottery to members of the public who want to be inside the castle/garden wall during the ceremony. To see her walk up the steps, the two of them exit the church together, get into the carriage, etc.

      This is a way of letting the members of the public *who want to participate* participate while also limiting security issues. If no one wants the tickets, no one will apply.

      Charles cannot legally cut Andrew off completely. He cannot stop Andrew from accepting engagements, although he can try to get the entities requesting a royal to direct those to his line instead. Try but cannot stop Andrew from doing whatever he wants. And Andrew will one of the Counselors of State during Charles’s reign. That is a legal position and requirement.

      If HM dies anytime in the next 16 years, Andrew is a Counselor. If Andrew dies anytime in the next 16 years too, then Beatrice is a Counselor. If both HM and Andrew die in the next 16 years, Beatrice and Eugenie are both Counselors. Nothing Charles can legally do about that. He cannot even force Andrew to move to Switzerland, because as a Counselor Andrew is required to live in the UK.

      • perplexed says:

        “Are they supposed to get married with just the two of them in a registry office simply because you don’t like her or her father?”

        No, but they can be mocked like everyone else in the royal family is.

        All kinds of famous people get mocked for their extravagance (George Clooney was and he was spending his own money — er, I think) — why would they be any different.

      • Reese says:

        Lol lol! So all of this deserves on over the top massive wedding on our dime? Are you serious ? The entitlement. She grew up there, she will live there? So she deserves all the pomp and circumstance of a fairy tale royal wedding?!?
        She can’t have a intimate ceremony there? She needs all the fanfare? The procession? Oh please we are humble, we don’t need titles but please wave to us as we go by in our carriage and celebrate how great we are. Give me a break.
        With this wedding nobody can say she is humble or it wouldn’t be this spectacle.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’ll happily mock Clooney and his PR-clean-up bride until the cows come home. Assange and Quadafi’s brother-in-law as clients anyone?

        Eugenie is marrying in the same church where her family has their private weddings. This is what they tend to do. Edward and Sophie. Peter and Autumn. All people who are ultimately lower down in the line of succession and in the family ranks than Eugenie. And this couple has lots of friends.

        Again, are they supposed to shut down the entire village of Windsor and ban the public from showing up? This would also cost a mint. Believe it or not, there continue to be people who support the monarchy circus. Those people want to show up, wave, see a carriage drive, and sing God Bless the Queen. Until such time as you convince all 68 million of them to vote the royals out, that’s the deal.

        The BRF is a Brand. A brand that could be eliminated if enough of the people wanted it eliminated. That Brand includes weddings of lower down members of the family being watched and cheered by members of the general public. Because members of the general public want to be there. The public isn’t paying for the wedding, the royal family is paying it privately. Security is paid by the taxpayers because the taxpayers are choosing to show up.

        That seems to be the key point people are missing. The public aren’t being conscripted to stand outside and wave. The public wants to show up and participate, so measures are put in place to allow that to happen. Those measures include security paid by the taxpayers – who are the ones choosing to keep paying for it.

      • Reese says:

        Seriously. This is her only option? Please. I almost feel sorry for all her suffering. Poor thing. Her only option is such opulence and extravagance. No title but since you must give me a fairy tale wedding I’ll take it.
        You paint such a great one sided argument. Lol. You should apply to work in the KP PR department. Put poor Jason out of business.
        Guess we have to dish out all this money! No other option fits. Us taxpayers voted for this. Yeah us! Love it. Guess I’m just a peasant who doesn’t understand that things can’t be scaled down for whom? Oh yeah. A nobody and her loser parents who do absolutely nothing but make the brand look weak.

      • perplexed says:

        “That seems to be the key point people are missing”

        I don’t think anybody is missing any point. The idea that we have to absolutely think she’s correct in how she conducts her wedding even though no one is going to listen to us anyway is what I find a bit baffling.

        They have all the power. We don’t. No one is going to listen to us. So us mere peasants making fun of her wedding isn’t going to harm her chance at getting security.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Opulent? Extravagant? Being paid for privately, and Eugenie and Jack have plenty of money. They have lots of friends, they want a big wedding, in the church where she grew up. Goodness knows we’ve seen her attend enough weddings through the years to think there are friends who want invites to hers. Carriage ride like many other members of her family.

        Not seeing how this is different, especially as she’s higher up in the pecking order than Edward or Peter. Edward’s wedding was televised, I don’t see that happening here. Peter doesn’t even have a title, so how is this wedding Eugenie screaming about her fiance not getting a title he doesn’t want?

        Keep protesting that either Eugenie or the public are in the wrong here, but facts are facts. As long as there is public access to wherever they were to get married, there would be members of the public showing up to cheer. Like 6000 of them did for Zara’s wedding in Scotland.

        Like it or not, there are plenty of people who like Eugenie. Remember when she was born, have followed her through the years. They are happy this complete stranger is getting married and they want to see her have a carriage ride in Windsor. So it happens.

        The wedding will have security because the public will show up. If the public wasn’t interested, nobody would show up, security wouldn’t be necessary. Join RepublicUK, attend an in-person protest in Windsor that day. Be the Change and all that.

        As long as People who Like Monarchy + People who are Indifferent > People who actively work to eliminate monarchy? Monarchy stays.

        I admit I’m hoping neither she nor Beatrice mess up horribly on their outfits for the day.

      • Reese says:

        You know what would be interesting? To see how many people would actually show up for HER.
        Let’s say the Queen, Charles, the D&Ds of C and S didn’t show? Would the crowds really be there for her? Just to see her? No other senior royals around? Is she really as popular as all this?
        I’m only interested in seeing MM and Harry. That’s the only pics from this wedding that hold any interest for me. And maybe the Cambridge kids.

      • Lizabeth says:

        I wonder if people would feel as heated about this wedding as some apparently do if Harry’s wedding had been held somewhere else. Certainly some have said she’s “copying” Harry even though I believe her engagement was announced before his, other royals have married at Windsor and other royals have invited people onto the grounds. People have also said she’s only having this kind of wedding because Harry did. How anyone could know that is beyond me. Given where and how she grew up this kind of wedding may have been what she would have always wanted even if Harry was still a bachelor. Personally I see nothing wrong with it and think she gets often criticized when she’s really done nothing to deserve it. I’m looking forward to seeing pictures (and seeing the Cambridge kids in their wedding roles for the 3rd time isn’t why!)

      • AmyLue says:

        Would you explain the position of Counselor of the State? It is hereditary? Why is it so tied to the children of A drew? Did the Queen set it up that way?

      • notasugarhere says:

        AmyLue you can look it up online. My links never get through otherwise I would post it myself. It is a legal position that is required to be an advisor and substitute for the monarch in particular situations. It exists by law not a whim of Queen Elizabeth’s. It is the spouse of the monarch plus the first four people in the line of succession who are 21 years or older.

        When the Queen (and Charles, Anne, etc.) was much younger, the Counselors included Philip, Princess Margaret, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, etc.

        Until W&K’s kids turn 21, they are ineligible to serve. That means for the next 16 years it is Andrew and his line who will end up as Counselors.

        Current Counselors are Philip, Charles, William, Harry, Andrew. Until William and Harry were 21, Edward and Anne were Counselors iirc.

        When Charles becomes king, it will be Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice.

        If Andrew dies before W&K’s first child is 21 or at any time in the next 16 years, Beatrice and Eugenie both become Counselor for Charles. Or for William if he ascends the throne before his children reach age 21.

    • CeeCee says:

      Did you think Harry’s wedding was ridiculous and over the top? He is 6th in line and his bride was divorced. That does matter in most weddings. Second weddings usually aren’t so over the top. Maybe they should have had a nice registry wedding?
      The York sisters are what, 7th and 8th in line now? 8th and 9th? Just like Harry. So if you didnt complain aout Harry’s extravganza, you can’t complain aout this one.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You seem to miss the part about WORKING royals and his father and brother being heirs. He’s in the direct line.

      • Lizabeth says:

        Well there was grumbling about Andrew’s large and elaborate Westminster Abbey wedding as I recall.  He was not as far down in the line of succession then as Harry is now. Still, many thought it was over the top for a second son who was quite unlikely to reach the throne.

      • Reese says:

        Harry is the son of the heir to the throne. You can’t compare the cousins.

  12. hu says:

    Anyone thinks that Eugene looks exactly like her great- grandmother, Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, the Queen mother????

    • Snap Happy says:

      Yes, she has a lot of B-L in her.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, which is why I’d like to see her in the Strathmore Rose tiara. Won’t happen because I’m expecting to see Sarah’s wedding tiara on her instead.

      The genes are strong in this family. Beatrice looks just like Victoria. Harry is a combination of Charles, Philip, and Queen Mary (right down to her red hair).

      • hu says:

        When the photos of Prince Louis´s christening came out, I saw Elizabeth Bowes Lyon in Princess Charlotte a little bit (but she is still a mini- Queen), when hi was a baby, Prince George looks a lot like his mother, but know I see Prince William (who looks like Princess Diana), Prince Louis looks a lot like the Duchess of Cambridge. And Prince Harry looks like his grandfather as the time pass.

      • Katrina says:

        Let’s just hope Fergie hasn’t sold her wedding tiara.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That is the one thing she has never gotten rid of. I remember pictures of her wearing it a few years ago.

  13. Rhys says:

    Did Markle have a choice to accept or decline a title? I wonder if she did and if she even for a moment gave it a thought. Here’s yet another man (the other one that I at least know of is Princess Madeleine’s husband Chris) who doesn’t jump on the royal wagon. It would have been much more modern for Meghan to decline a title and keep her work at the UN and her pantsuit.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She wouldn’t have been allowed to, although I understand tumblr is fond of this ridiculous idea. Harry is required to be a working royal, his spouse was always going to be required to be one. Charles, his wife, his two sons, their wives. That is rumored to be the core working royals moving forward. To require her to be a working royal, but have her be the only one without a title? Really?

      Chris didn’t accept a title because Madeleine is the third child of the monarch, not a working royal, and is dropping fast in the line of succession. He supports their family himself. Sofia should have followed his lead. Sweden has less than 10 million people; they do not need 6 full-time royals. Carl-Philip and his wife need to move out of royal properties and stop mooching off the taxpayers.

      • Maria says:

        I agree about CP and Sofia. Why is the king keeping them on the royal dole? Hopefully things will change once Victoria takes over.

      • Olive says:

        @Maria wasn’t the King unhappy with the change in law that made Victoria as firstborn the heir over her brother? I can see why he’d keep them around if so

      • notasugarhere says:

        Because the king is a sexist pig who still publicly claims his son was robbed of his birthright and should be the heir instead of Victoria.

      • Rhys says:

        I didn’t know Madeleine isn’t a working royal. I’ve seen her doing many public events. BTW I highly doubt that Chris really “supports his family” as I’m sure Madeleine has a personal fortune and many perks that come with her status of a princess.
        It is interesting that Sofia accepted the title, while Chris didn’t and it didn’t seem to be a problem. So, if Harry had gone through with his decision to step down from the line (I remember him saying something of that sort and the uproar) then Markle could have kept her career and/or her involvement in charities she had to give up?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Madeleine’s work with Childhood is all private. Any events she attends in Sweden she gets reimbursement for costs that’s it. Vs her brother and SIL who live full-time in royal properties and life full-time off the taxpayers instead of working like Madeleine and Chris do.

        Chris comes from money and he’s in a profession where he makes a lot of money. Far more than what Madeleine is worth.

        He never said he wanted to step down, despite rumors of childhood deals between he and William that both would walk. That just isn’t an option and they know it. Basically he said no one wants to be king, but if the people want monarchy, it is their job to do it. Duty and all that.

        There is no way of leaving his position, not in today’s environment. It would just have been decades of people complaining endlessly about his security costs even if proof was published that he paid all of them himself. As long as there is monarchy, the monarch and his line are the ones who play the parts.

        The BRF needs to figure out how to handle the size of the working family, and they need to start now. They have to decide if all three of W&K’s kids will be working royals, or if they’ll follow the European model and slim down to only the eldest child. That decision needs to be made and made public now, so those two kids can be prepared and educated for a life outside the circus.

      • Rhys says:

        Prince Carl is not working? From the official website of the Swedish royal family:

        “A selection of HKH Prince Carl Philips’s permanent guardianships, honorary fellowships and more.

        Dyslexia-linked FMLS
        Association of Housing Companies
        International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
        Royal Motorboat Club
        Royal Swedish Segelsällskapet
        Little Children’s Fund
        The Byamossarna Nature Reserve
        Operation Smile
        Sigvard & Marianne Bernadotte’s Research Foundation for Child Care
        The Marianne & Sigvard Bernadotte artists’ fund
        Swedish rally
        Sveriges Veteranförbund Fredsbaskrarna
        Volvo Ocean Race
        This year’s chef”

        It appears (at least) he has several patronages and sounds like he is working or attending opening ceremonies, which is what royal “work” seem to be anyway?

      • notasugarhere says:

        You’re making my point. CP and his wife aren’t supposed to be doing those things, living off the taxpayers and pretending they’re needed as part of the royal family.

        They would be welcome to do charity work on their own time as private citizens supporting themselves – but they don’t support themselves. They’re playacting at this and forcing a role for themselves as taxpayer-funded royals when they should be moving to private life like Madeleine.

      • Rhys says:

        But why should they if no one is forcing them to? All three Victoria, Madeleine and Carl are children of the monarch, just like Will and Harry. It’s safe to assume if Harry cannot dispose with his title, Carl cannot either. Or can he if Madeleine did?

      • aaa says:

        Any argument about Carl Philip taking advantage of Swedish taxpayers would apply to Madeleine many times over.

        Some corrections:
        Childhood was founded by Queen Silvia and Madeleine has done activities for Childhood in New York and Sweden that have been listed on the royal calendar, so not all of Madeleine’s Childhood activities are private.

        Both Carl Philip and Madeleine were given royal residences. CP has had only has one royal residence, his bachelor residence. In 2015 when Sofia was pregnant with their first child, they moved in with his parents. Yes it is a royal residence but not one designated for him. When Sofia was pregnant with their second child they moved into a private home that CP inherited.

        Madeleine was also given a taxpayer funded royal residence when she became an adult. She was going to upgrade apartments when she got married but the engagement was broken and Madeleine left Sweden but still had a taxpayer funded residence. When Madeleine had her first child she upgraded to a larger royal residence. The residence also needed renovating. So Madeleine has had taxpayer funded residences in Sweden even though she has not been a full-time resident of Sweden since 2010.

        When it comes to royal work, Carl Philip and Madeleine have the same financial arrangement, they both get compensated by their father for the royal work they do. If Carl Philip gets more money than Madeleine then it is because he does more royal work than she does. Again note that CP does not have a taxpayer funded home in Sweden and Madeleine does.

        Madeleine’s husband comes from a privileged background, his father was a wealthy financier and his mother married well. Chris was working in finance when he met Madeleine but he now works for a start up company financed by one of his sisters husbands. IIRC Chris said in a TV interview that the business is not making a lot of money, and I think that the Swedish press has also reported that the company is operating at a loss.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Swedish tabloids, not press – tabloids, will say anything they can to attack Chris and Madeleine while cozying up to the porn model princess. That much is obvious.

        Madeleine has moved to private life, works for Childhood, is supported by a wealthy husband who refused a title, and only receives compensation for events or temporary housing while she’s performing those duties.

        CP and Sofia have spent years living full-time in royal properties, when they married she quit the charity she joined (joined, not founded), she accepted a title, and they positioned themselves as full-time royals. This was questioned at the time, which is why we got the silly excuses about how Sofia was going to be working as an assistant to the king that’s why she was going to be full-time royal, etc.

        Each royal family is different. In a country of 10 million people, 6 full-time royals are not needed. CP and Sofia are extraneous, living out of the taxpayer trough, and appear to be planning to do so until the end of time. Madeleine and Chris, especially with positioning themselves outside of Sweden, appear to be deliberately planning on their kids losing titles and getting out of the line of succession.

        In Norway, only the heir, wife, and 1st child will be working royals. The “spare” is “Highness” not “Royal Highness” and is expected to go out and earn a living. Netherlands has a similar set up.

      • aaa says:

        If you want to refer to the Swedish media that covers the Swedish Royal Family as tabloids then have at it but royals like Madeleine and Victoria conduct interviews and give statements to them.

        Both Madeleine and Carl Philip conduct activities that are private and also do royal work. Madeleine may do private work for Childhood but as I mentioned Madeleine does Childhood related work that appears on the royal calendar, so your assertion that all of Madeleine’s work for Childhood is private was incorrect.

        Madeleine has a taxpayer funded apartment in Sweden that is for the exclusive use of her and her family. If you want to call it temporary because she is not a full-time resident of Sweden then have at it.

        Carl Philip did spend years living in royal properties, he is a full-time resident of Sweden, son of a monarch and carries out royal work. Unlike his part-time resident sister, he did not upgrade royal residences when he got married and started having children, rather he moved in with his parents until his private home was ready for occupancy.

        I don’t recall Carl Philip and Sofia positioning themselves as full-time working royals and if they did then they are not fulfilling that commitment. Carl Philip does a decent amount of royal work but he divides his time between royal work, his design business and racing.

        I agree with the comment that each royal family is different and it can also be said that each country with a monarchy is different and it is up to the country to decide how to use their royal families. A large country like Spain demonstrates that you do not need a large royal family to serve the country, but then again you have a small country like Denmark that has / had numerous adults doing royal work.

        I don’t think that Carl Philip, Madeleine and Sofia are extraneous but the core working royal family is the King, Queen and Crown Princess couple.

        It does not appear to me at all that Madeleine and Chris are positioning themselves to live outside Sweden, both have made comments that are opposite of that claim. It makes no sense for the O’Neill’s to have a plan to take their kids out of the line of succession and then have their youngest child be given a princess title and a duchy.

    • Murphy says:

      Markle doesn’t have a title. She has the female style of her husband’s title.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That makes no sense. Harry is a direct heir through Charles and they are working royals. To do something like that, in her position, would have been a useless gesture and an extreme insult to TQ and her new family.
      Why would she do that? So only Meghan should not have accepted title? Her very presence is enough of a shakeup.

    • CeeCee says:

      I agree that rejecting a title would have had Meghan seem much more of a modern feminist woman. Accepting a title goes against a meritocracy – it is all about inheritance. And it certainly isn’t feminist, either.

      • Lizabeth says:

        I don’t understand why people seem to expect MM to embody a pure type of feminism at all times and if she doesn’t, she must stop calling herself a feminist. I expect if we applied the same rule to ourselves and our self-chosen descriptors (whatever they might be), we’d all fail if we examined ourselves honestly. If we describe ourselves as understanding, for example, aren’t there times we weren’t? At least once or twice? Or loving, caring, loyal, friendly, outgoing, or whatever….I’m pretty sure other people can point to times we weren’t! Why the strict rule for MM?

      • Rhys says:

        @Ceecee – I’m still not clear as to whether Markle would have been allowed to refuse the title (if Madeleine did why not Harry and so on?) BUT it doesn’t make her not a feminist. Are women who decide not to pursue a career outside their marital home not feminists? No.
        Personally, I think it would have made her a more modern woman, but whatever, she decided to become a duchess, no big deal.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No, she would not have been able to refuse her husband’s title just like she wouldn’t be allowed to keep working as an actress instead of taking on royal duties. That doesn’t make her anti-feminist, any more than it makes Maxima, Letizia, et. al. anti-feminist. Straight out of tumblr to pretend otherwise.

        If Harry had been a girl and married a man, or even if Harry had married another man? They still would have gotten some form of title and been required to work as members of the firm.

      • Tina says:

        It’s not really any different to calling oneself “Mrs” instead of “Ms.” “Mrs” is much more common over here. Sometimes I insist on “Ms” but a lot of the time I can’t be bothered. If Meghan had wished to refuse the title, she shouldn’t have married Harry. The title goes with the job.

  14. CharlieBouquet says:

    So I never paid attention to royals as I am from the US. After reading stuff here about Nazi stuff in the families past, something with the Andrew guy being friends with Epstein, they were apparently tight with that monster Saville. So with the documentaries on youtube, the senior members seem quite scandalous. Are these things true? If so why is it so special to be married into the family?

    • Allie M. says:

      I was also wondering similar things, reading up on PC and PA and the connections to Saville and sexual abuse. I don’t know why these stories keep getting covered up. This is a monster family.

    • Bitsy says:

      Its actually a lot worse than we will ever know. So much is swept under the rug. Even with the “modern” royals. I used to be obsessed with Will when he was young… until I found out about his Colonial and Native party at university. Apparently this is a popular party theme amongst the aristo crowd. It was the same party where Harry dressed as a Nazi. Will was dressed as a Zulu chief with black tights and black face and everything. They cleaned it up REAL good tho and called it a costume party and put all the focus on Harry. You’ll never, ever, ever find those pix of Will.
      But people still love em…including MM. They lost their sparkle for me after I found out about that.
      But I still like Kate.

      • Tina says:

        Kate is no different to the rest of them. Many posh people in this country are utterly unreconstructed. Don’t admire them – they’re intellectually incurious, lazy and prejudiced.

  15. Molly says:

    If Jack declines the title, their kids would have no titles. (Like Zara and Peter.) Who knows if Beatrice really cares, but I imagine Andrew and Fergie caring a great deal. It’ll be interesting how it shakes out.

  16. perplexed says:

    So are they paying for their wedding or does the royal family? I’m a little confused after reading some of the posts.

    • magnoliarose says:

      The BRF/public is paying. Andy and Fergie sold anything that wasn’t nailed down and got busted grifting by using his access to broker deals.
      It is overkill for a non working royal who isn’t even a child of an heir to have a wedding this size. If her parents had money it would be one thing but they don’t.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Somebody bought the 13 million pound chalet in Switzerland. How they acquired that money we don’t know, but on paper Andrew and Fergie have a stash of private funds. Some of it came from the dicey sale of Sunninghill Park, but by rights that was their private property to sell.

        Edward and Sophie had a wedding this size and at the time, they were not expected to be working royals.

        Peter and Autumn had a wedding this size in this same place, and they are never going to be working royals.

      • minx says:

        Lol at “Andy and Fergie sold anything that wasn’t nailed down.” Oh, those two.

  17. D says:

    Wow if he refuses a title she’s litterealy marrying a dead weight what a dolt don’t be so common jack it’s highly overrrated by the privileged and you will regret it

  18. aquarius64 says:

    I think Andrew is disappointed for no title for Jack. His grandchildren will be “commoners”.

  19. Laura says:

    I think Eugenie is a very pretty woman ❤ I don’t know much about her work – charitable or professional – but she isn’t scandalous or snobby (at least she doesn’t come across as such) and doesn’t deserve to be dumped on or viewed as inferior to her cousins. She deserves a happy wedding and a happy both. I can’t wait to see the photos from her wedding because I really like her dresses in these pictures 😊