Sarah Ferguson claims Eugenie is being ‘bullied’ by spiteful Daily Mail columnist


Royal Ascot 2015 - Day 4

Last week, we learned that Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank were going to copy some elements of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding. We already knew that Eugenie and Jack’s wedding ceremony would be held at the chapel at Windsor Castle, and that chances are pretty good that the vibe will feel a lot like Meg & Harry’s wedding. Last week, Eugenie and Jack announced that they too were inviting members of the public to come and stand around outside of the chapel. The tickets will be given away by a lottery system, and 1200 tickets will be offered.

Many people – myself included – were like “is there really THAT much excitement for Eugenie’s wedding?” I know British peeps love a royal wedding, but I did wonder. As it turns out, I wasn’t the only one wondering. Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir wrote a very mean-spirited editorial about how Eugenie is too big for her royal britches and Eugenie has some bloody nerve to think that she’s as popular as Harry and Meghan. It was all very anti-York. I didn’t cover it because I thought the piece was just really mean. I question why Eugenie is “copying” Meghan and Harry too, but hell, it’s HER wedding and she can do what she wants.

As it turns out, Eugenie’s mom Sarah Ferguson read the Moir column and she had some sh-t to say. She let someone else do the talking though – Fergie posted an Instagram of a letter sent to the Daily Mail from Sarah Wade, who defended Eugenie and slammed Moir’s spitefulness.

I mean… I agree with Fergie and Sarah Wade and everybody else. I thought it was an oddity, as I said, that Eugenie would decide to copy something from Harry and Meghan’s wedding, but honestly… it doesn’t even matter that much. No one should be writing screeds about how Eugenie is the devil for… wanting attention on her wedding day…? Every bride wants to be the center of attention. And Eugenie is a princess, she’s the Queen’s granddaughter, and she’s getting married at the Windsor Castle chapel. People WILL want to see her and they’re want to wish her well. Let her enjoy her day without turning everything into a five-act drama.

Filming Italy Sardegna Festival - Day 2- Arrivals

President Mandela 100th Birthday Celebration

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News and WENN.

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

85 Responses to “Sarah Ferguson claims Eugenie is being ‘bullied’ by spiteful Daily Mail columnist”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dyanmoon says:

    I’ve made the mistake of reading some of Jan Moir’s work. The woman is a piece of work. Incredibly spiteful, nasty and with a horrible jealous side that she doesn’t even bother to hide.

    Even if she was trying to get extra attention with that piece there was no need to be so rude. It’s a shame that’s how she makes her living.

  2. Birdix says:

    The article was rude enough that it seemed to drum up some sympathy for her. Surprised Sarah would give the article legs by referring to it again.

  3. Lady D says:

    I like the York princesses and I was wondering why such an ignorant story was written, too. I didn’t realize the writer was a jealous shrew.

  4. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    “…for a 28 year old women…”

    Girlfriend needs to enable grammar check before hitting send.

    In any case, why pile on Eugenie? Didn’t HRH pile on dullard Brooksbank? Isn’t that sufficient?

    • Amy Too says:

      She’s also missing an end quotation mark when she’s quoting the Moir article. It made the third paragraph difficult to read and understand. I had to re-read it a few times before I figured it out.

      And why is there a tall vertical line (like an extra tall capital letter I) in the last paragraph, at the end of the first line?

      Did she or any of her people proof read this rightfully indignant letter? Did Fergie or any of her people proof read it before posting it to social media?

      Edit: also “todays Daily Mail,” and the first sentence of the second paragraph which should really be two sentences. The first part of that sentence is a statement that should end with a period. The second part is questions which should be their own sentence ending with a question mark.

  5. Benise Donahue says:

    Holy crap. I just read that article. 🤭 Someone sure has a lot of sand in their vagina.

  6. Clare says:

    Given she is a ‘blood’ princess I don’t see what the difference is between her having attention on her wedding v Meghan having attention on hers. Granted Harry is the son of the heir, but Eugenie is a granddaughter of the Queen. Personally I feel none of these layabouts should be spending from the public purse (the security for Harry’s wedding cost us £30m+), but I see no different between any of them really – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and whatnot. I think the York sisters get a lot of stick beause their parents are quite widely disliked by the British people and media (rightfully so).

    • Leyton says:

      Security was not 30 million. It actually only end up being like 3. The 30 million was spread weeks prior and no one ever bothered to check the actual number. Will and Kate’s security was only 6 million.

      I think the York sisters get treated unfairly and I’ve never liked how they would talk about their weight/bodies but I would be a liar if I think they should have a wedding on the same scale as Harry’s. For one, Harry is a working Royal. The York sister don’t even get an RPO. Their weddings should be like that of Zara and Peter’s. Harry’s wedding was on a far smaller scale than Williams but the international attention and his position in the family justified all they did for it (televised, etc.),

      • Cerys says:

        Agree with you. The York sisters are treated unfairly by the press but Jan Moir’s article was spot-on with some of her observations about the upcoming wedding. The tax payer shouldn’t have to fund a big event for a minor Royal. And yes, I know she is the queen’s granddaughter but she is not a “working” Royal. A wedding like Zara or Peter Phillips would be more appropriate. I think the big wedding is coming more from Andrew and Sarah’s inflated sense of importance. The one aspect of the wedding I am looking forward to, though, is seeing how Phillip and Charles handle being near Sarah.

      • Lady D says:

        No way in hell was security for that wedding $30 million. Not even close.

      • Sherry says:

        I agree. It would be different if all of the Queen’s grandchildren were wanting royal titles, grand public weddings, etc., but they don’t. Princess Anne’s children don’t have titles, Prince Edward’s children are simply Lord and Lady – Prince Andrew is the only child of the Queen demanding “blood princess” titles and lobbying for his daughters to be “working royals.”

        Harry is the grandson of the Queen, the son of the future King and the brother of the future King. Of course his wedding to Meghan was going to be a big affair.

        I have nothing against Eugenia and Beatrice personally, but their parents seem to think these girls are on the same social standing as Harry and they are not.

      • Milla says:

        Either way, she’s Queen’s grandchild and Harry got away with so much crap, only for being Diana’s son, just like Will.
        Both York sisters should get royal weddings, Harry is sixth in line, he got his. This isn’t about Meg, unless they used Meg to show that they aren’t dated racist sexist institution…

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        Harry is a Prince. Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses. There is nothing different about their social standing at all. They’re all from the most elitist family on earth. Lol. Thousands of people turned up for Zara’s wedding. The public turned up for Peter’s wedding and he had a carriage ride. Whats the problem with Eugenie having the same? Let her have her shine. This is the first Princess wedding since Anne!

        The security cost will be lower than Harry’s and the overall cost of Jack and Eugenie’s wedding will be far less than Harry and Meghan’s wedding. Good on them for that. The wedding cost is surprisingly low actually. It’s on par with regular rich people luxury weddings.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne’s kids do not have titles simply because titles do not pass through the female line. In addition her first husband refused any title, so Peter and Zara have neither royal nor aristocratic titles. It wasn’t Andrew demanding something extra, it was simply what Beatrice and Eugenie had a right to as part of the existing system.

        Beatrice and Eugenie have “princess” titles because that’s how the system works. They are the children of a royal prince who is the son of a reigning monarch. Andrew and Sarah were working royals, Anne was but neither of her husbands have been, and Edward and Sophie were not supposed to be.

        It was expected at the time that Andrew and Sarah would be working royals for the rest of their lives and that Beatrice and Eugenie would be working royals too. Just as Princess Alexandra and Duke and Duchess of Gloucester are; cousins of the monarch who have spent their lives performing engagements to help out their cousin Elizabeth.

        Edward and Sophie’s kids are technically prince and princess but they go by a different title. Edward also has a lower title (Earl not Duke) because one day he is expected to be given the title of Duke of Edinburgh to carry on his father’s title. Those decisions were made in a different circumstance, 10-15 years after Beatrice and Eugenie were born. Back when Edward and Sophie were not working royals and their kids were never expected to be working royals.

      • perplexed says:

        “Harry is a Prince. Eugenie and Beatrice are Princesses. There is nothing different about their social standing at all.”

        I think there sort of is in the sense that Harry used to be the spare. His overall ranking is definitely higher than theirs. He also gets additional titles and landed estates because of his ranking. Is it fair? Maybe not, but the whole royal system is weird to begin with.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        I think you’re confusing Royal rank with social standing. Two very different meanings.

      • perplexed says:

        “I think you’re confusing Royal rank with social standing. Two very different meanings.”

        I don’t think I am. I think you might be saying the same thing as me — yes, two different meanings. Clearly, it’s better to have higher royal rank. Royal rank gets you more perks as evidenced in the difference between how an heir and a spare are treated. Why else are we wondering about the difference between how George and Charlotte vs Louis might be treated?

        Social standing is a bit more ephemeral. Yes, Eugenie has social standing. But in the 21st century I’m not sure how far that flies. People outside of their set overall aren’t going to necessarily think you’re a better person or think you deserve better treatment because of your social standing. Sure, that matters within their narrow social circle, but at university or at a conference that Elon Musk is attending, no one is going to care. Even the fact she’s willing to marry someone who sells alcohol slightly indicates that she herself might not be attached to the notion of social standing, just the privileges she could potentially get through her grandparents. She clearly doesn’t want to marry one of her in-bred second cousins either because of some antiquated notion of social standing. Are you telling me that you’d seriously shake in your knees if you met her because of her social standing? I have my doubts.

    • Millenial says:

      I, for one, would find it really annoying if my cousins got these big splashy weddings, due to our shared grandmother, and I didn’t. All the favoritism among grandchildren would be really difficult to grow up with. The Queen might love them all equally, but they certainly aren’t all treated the same in terms of titles, money, homes, etc… I get that’s life and they are still fabulously wealthy, but I could see from a non-heir perspective that it would sting a bit.

      So, all that is to say, I don’t blame Eugenie for wanting to do something a bit special.

      • perplexed says:

        It’s the public who favours them too, though. William and Harry had splashy weddings, because the thing is televised and the royal family isn’t going to want the peasants going “That’s it? Give us a show!”

        Secretly, they probably would prefer a more low-key wedding, but the public more or less wants a show from them. Even Diana’s funeral was kind of a…show…where they had to walk in front of the world for all of us to gawk at them. The weddings wouldn’t be any different.

      • Iknow says:

        But Harry and William being the sons of the future King of England makes them stand out more. If she was a regualr old grandmother, I would see your point. But they dwell in an old system where rank matters.

      • Natalie S says:

        My objection is the carriage ride combined with the risk of having members of the public there. Thete genuinely doesn’t seem to be a need for it and the Queen isn’t footing the bill for security. If the Queen is willing to pony up, then no criticism from me.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        Peter had a carriage ride so why shouldn’t Eugenie? Did you object to Peter’s wedding as well??

      • Natalie S says:

        @hypocrites_all_around. They didn’t invite the public to gawk at them.

        They should pay for this nonsense or cut it out. It’s not in the public interest to pay extra in security so they can invite people to gawk at Eugenie and Jack. They’re not working royals and Fergie and thousand-yard-stare Andrew need to get over it.

        Actually, maybe the public should pay for it or Andrew will drive through another set of gates in rage.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        Lol. Another example would be Edward and Sophie. They did the whole carriage ride/inviting the public, too.

    • perplexed says:

      I tend to think Harry probably (maybe even William) probably would have had private weddings if they could have. But by their positioning in rank, they had to have their weddings public. Also, People magazine has an interest in them. I wonder what would happen if an heir or spare said they don’t want the public at large or the British magazines looking at their wedding.

      Eugenie is blood royal technically, but she’s so far down the line I can kind of see from that perspective why less people would have interest in her or her wedding. In that sense, I think she has more of a choice in terms of how public she wants her wedding to be. Unless you’re going to be the future Queen like Princess Elizabeth was, do people generally have an interest in a man finding his princess? That’s not the fairy-tale narrative people that appeals to women at large anyway, and I’m pretty sure guys don’t care about fairy tales at all to begin with.

      That said, I don’t think mean articles need to be written about them. But I get why Harry would get the splashy wedding. He’s almost “required” to be kind of entertaining to the public because of his rank. There’s really no such requirement for Eugenie. Maybe if she were more glamorous people would be interested in her, but even then I’m not sure. The glamour seems to come from the ranking, which is why I assume people paid attention to Andrew when he was younger but Edward seemed to be invisible. Poor Edward. Did anyone ever care about his existence??? The only time I seemed to notice him is when he married Sophie.

      • CeeCee says:

        Actually, there’s a tradition of inviting the public onto the castle grounds, and of carriage rides. Edward and Sophie invited randomly-chosen members of the public. Both Edward/Sophie and Peter/Autumn had carriage rides.

        I don’t think Eugenie has any expectation that her wedding will be like Harry’s. This “competition” is being drummed up by the press, because disharmony and competition make money for them. Eugenie and Harry are close friends, and Eugenie is well aware that Harry is closer to the throne and more popular.

        People should stop buying into these manufactured crises.

      • perplexed says:

        “People should stop buying into these manufactured crises.”

        It may be a manufactured crisis, but even Sarah Ferguson, mother-of-the bride, responded to it. We, in turn, our sharing our opinion.

        There may be a tradition of inviting the public onto castle grounds, but honestly I’m wondering who would want to make the effort. With Harry and Meghan, they invited members of their charities so at least the people coming in probably felt “Oh what the heck, we do charity volunteerism for Harry and Meghan. Might as well go if we score an invite. And, hey, we might see OPRAH!” But why anyone would make the trek for Edward’s or Eugenie’s wedding with no charity connection involved is a bit baffling to me. I wouldn’t do this for either of them — not unless there was a Starbucks somewhere close by and I just happened to be in there in the vicinity typing away at my computer and the carriage happened to prance on by. There’s a certain degree of effort involved in seeing these royals up close for their weddings, and I’d probably rather just go to a concert where I can see the lead singer of a British rock band instead. Since I actually follow the royals and wouldn’t make the effort, I can only imagine how uninterested non-royal watchers would be, especially for someone like Eugenie. Is anyone dying to see Sarah Ferguson up close? Eh, not really. Andrew, in his current incarnation? I think we all know the answer. George and Charlotte will probably be the stars of their wedding.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        Thousands of people showed up to their weddings so you’re wrong. Meghan and Harry also invited random members of the public, they weren’t all connected to charity! CC is right.

      • perplexed says:

        But do they show up for the actual bride and groom or for the other more famous people that will show up for the wedding? That part isn’t clear to me. That’s why I mentioned Oprah in reference to Harry’s wedding. Big stars were showing up to his wedding. Wouldn’t be surprised if people want to see a glimpse of Princess Charlotte rather than Eugenie. If people show up for Eugenie’s wedding, it’s likely because hype was created not because people are genuinely interested. Call it the Pippa Method, if you will.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        I don’t think many celebrities were invited to Zara’s, Edward’s, or Peter’s weddings, but they still showed up. Idk. There’ll always be monarchists willing to turn up and wave.

      • perplexed says:

        I think it’s possible they might have showed up to see the bigger royal names.

        For instance, when Eugenie’s has her wedding, I’m sure Twitter will go nuts for George and Charlotte.

  7. Citresse says:

    Behind the scenes, Andrew, no doubt, has been protesting with the fact his beloved daughters are the “blood princesses” and deserve a bigger and better wedding than Prince Harry. Sarah Ferguson is a vile woman. I wonder what would’ve happened to her if Andrew remarried a wealthy woman years ago.

    • Olive says:

      I think the article should’ve gone after Andrew and Fergie instead of Eugenie for refusing to accept their daughters’ positions and futures in the BRF (none), tbh. that’s the root of this.

      • Badrockandroll says:

        The article did go after Fergie – twice – which I think explains why the went after it. The headline states that Eugenie’s “hunger for glitz and glamour is the same as her mother” . It continues later by conceding that Eugenie has a good job at an art gallery and she has never — unlike her mother — caused the Royals any embarrassment”.
        This whole drama is all about Fergie.

    • sushi says:

      I do not understand why ‘blood princesses’ deserve a bigger and better wedding than Harry. So you imply Harry is not ‘blood prince’?. Or blood princess deserve better and bigger wedding than blood prince.

      • Citresse says:

        Andrew will have very little power if Charles is King. Andrew is attempting to get as much as he can while his mother is still alive. Harry is the son of Charles, the heir apparent and Harry is the brother of William, a future King. It makes sense Harry would have a bigger wedding with more media coverage. Sarah Ferguson is milking her daughter’s wedding as much as possible.

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t get the whole blood princess thing either, mainly because people only care if you’re a princess if you’re glamorous or high up in ranking. Unless you’re exceedingly beautiful, the princess thing doesn’t seem to mean much of anything to People or Hello magazine. I’m pretty certain people are more interested in J-Lo showing off her bikini abs on Instagram than whatever weird hat Eugenie is wearing.

        Now that we live in the 21st century, nobody cares whether you’re a prince or princess unless you’re in line to be King or Queen or of some kind of note to the celebrity culture. In that regard, Andrew no longer serves a purpose in either capacity, even though he was born a blood prince. At some point even Charles probably became boring to people until he married Diana who fulfilled some fairy-tale archetype. We no longer live in the era of King Arthur where being a prince or princess probably meant something.

      • notasugarhere says:

        To some this matters. She’s the first born-princess in the royal family to marry since Princess Anne. If the public wants to show up, making free tickets available in a lottery (like Edward and Sophie, Harry and Meghan) allows that participation. And it allows pre-screening of those who get tickets for security purposes. Eugenie and Beatrice grew up at Windsor and spent a lot of time there. Wedding there makes sense.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        You could easily say.. why does a blood prince deserve a bigger wedding than a blood princess? There are a lot of Princes and Princesses throughout the world and they usually just get on with their lives, but it’s the titles that open up some doors for them and their spouses.

        and Americans wouldn’t be calling Megan Markle a Princess (wrongly) if it didn’t mean anything.

      • Natalie S says:

        @hypocrites_all_around. Because Harry is higher in the line of succession and a working royal. These are their own dumb rules. These people believe in this stuff -they actually bow to each other. By their own rules, these two particular blood princesses are lower than the two blood princes who are the sons of Charles.

        Ugh, I hate the terms blood princess and blood prince.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Prince and Princess of the Blood is very Ancien Régime. That is how the French referred to royals and their ranks in the hierarchy. It is a little much for 2018.

      • perplexed says:

        “To some this matters”

        Honestly, I think this only matters to those actually within the system. They’re the ones that have to deal with the curtseying and “I’m better than you so suck it” from Princess Michael of Kent. To the rest of us, they’e high-status people that we gawk at and then we got on with our business. None of us are in that rarefied world, so it doesn’t matter to us either way whether Eugenie deserves a better wedding or not. If she gets one, okay. If she doesn’t, oh well, none of us will be crying in our buckets over it. If people show up for the wedding which I’m not disputing some will do, it’s likely to be for the same reason I might show up at Marine Land — it’s just something to do for the day.

        “why does a blood prince deserve a bigger wedding than a blood princess? ”

        Because he’s higher up in ranking? It’s the royal family who made up their weird rules to begin with. Heck. we were all wondering if Obama would score an invite, and if Donald Trump, President of the United States and leader of the free world (egads) would throw a freawing tantrum and possibly cause a kerfuffle with Theresa May over a lack of one. Are we wondering the same thing about Eugenie? Honestly, no. So, yes, I do think there’s a distinction in how Harry is viewed both within the system and the world at large.

      • hypocrites_all_around says:

        In 2028/2038/2048… I betcha they’ll still be calling themselves blood Prince and Princess. The British monarchy has staying power for whatever reason.

      • perplexed says:

        Sure, they can call themselves whatever they want. Doesn’t mean that anyone outside of their extremely narrow social set really cares either way. Even she doesn’t care about marrying a blood prince from some country far away either.

        And, yes, the British monarchy has staying power. But its the people at the very top that command the most institutional respect and attention by those outside of it. Why anyone would deny this is beyond me. Even within the royal system itself, I’m sure people will let Eugenie and the others know their place. If they were that important, their mother would be accorded some degree of respect, which she’s not. That right there shows that even within their system they may not be afforded the respect they’re seeking.

        Maybe the issue people have with Eugenie and her family is that despite being part of an old-money system, they behave more like new money. Old-monied aristocrats are generally more….subtle?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Perplexed it matters to the members of the general public who show up to cheer.

      • perplexed says:

        “Perplexed it matters to the members of the general public who show up to cheer.”

        But does it matter to anybody whether she gets a bigger wedding or not? Would anybody fight on her behalf for it? No, I don’t think so.

        The public has been invited, they’ll show up for whatever reason (i.e hype, media interest, tourists, something to do that day, a day out for something unusual, boredom, a drive through the country, passive complacency, etc.) Beyond that, no I don’t think anyone cares what her social standing is or would fight for her interests in that regard.

  8. Leyton says:

    I understand what Fergie is saying but she ,more than anyone, should know how the media is and she should just ignore it. They media has been absolutely disgusting towards Meghan and are now taking jabs at Eugenie. It’s unfortunate but not worth anyone’s salt. Jan Moir is a bitter c**t and no one should be giving her the satisfaction of a response.

  9. I know it’s fan fiction but I really, really want to believe that Andy and Fergie are going to remarry. It would be gossip for the ages.

  10. SympathyRage says:

    I can’t believe I am about to defend the monarchy, but Eugenie’s “relatively low royal status” is nonsense. She is a g-d full-blooded princess. SHE is a princess, not Meghan or Kate. She and Beatrice don’t need to be in line for the throne to have massive weddings. Harry will never even get close to ruling, and his was ridiculous. The real issue is that the girls don’t work enough to justify the tax payers provididing her with a huge event, but at the end of the day, it is a monarchy and when your tax payers believe (or are required to believe) that you fart rainbows because god said so then it is not for them to have an opinion, etc.

    • perplexed says:

      “SHE is a princess, not Meghan or Kate”

      They’re not princesses, but William and Harry are princes, and the public does know who they are. And people have always shown an interest in who the princes marry and whoever could capture their heart. It was that way with Charles. It wouldn’t be any different with William or Harry. Diana was not a blood princess either, but who she married is why people were initially interested in her. Heck, who Sarah married is why people were interested in her too. There was nothing remotely glamorous about Sarah, but she did generate interest just by virtue of marrying Andrew (who I guess was a thing once upon a time).

      In the end, people probably have more of an interest in seeing a woman find a prince than a man finding a princess, I think. Things will probably be different for Princess Charlotte, but she IS actually the spare, and has a slight chance of being a future Queen like her great-grandmother in a way that Eugenie never will (well not unless someone takes everyone ahead of her out).

    • notasugarhere says:

      The York princesses do not work at all as royals, so why are you saying that’s a requirement for Eugenie getting married in the church on the estate where she grew up? They do not have taxpayer paid security and the taxpayers do not pay for their living accommodations.

      Peter and Autumn married at Windsor and had a carriage ride to boot. They’re not working royals either.

    • hypocrites_all_around says:

      Very true. If people support a monarchy, then they have to let the family do their thing, whether one likes it or not.

  11. Louise says:

    I think this article was in the bigger picture of what we all know – her parents are pushy and they constantly want their daughters to be elevated to a level which they feel appropriate. The article was mean but is there any interest in this wedding? not really, no.

  12. InquisitiveNewt says:

    @Clare I think you’re confusing Trump’s security bill with H&M’s wedding. The former cost 30m, negatively affected the economy due to the large number of people rightly protesting the Orange Bloater’s presence, and offered no positive returns whatsoever. 5m of public funds secured his presence on his wretched gold course so he could be, yet again, under par.
    The latter cost 3m, was designed not only to protect the happy couple but the general public from whatever lunatic may have detonated itself otherwise, and boosted the economy by millions upon millions. Not to mention making a lot of people feel happy and charitable with the world, and providing a much needed diversion from the bloody football.

  13. B says:

    The article was mean but you have to admit she does have a point.

  14. perplexed says:

    I think Eugenie has gotten more attention than Edward ever did when he was flying solo, so, er, there’s that, I guess.

  15. P says:

    Read the article, there was no need for that level of disrespect. The author could have made her point ( she is a minor royal, blah, blah), without practically insulting the bride, groom, and their families, even comparing her to her grandmother’s dog.

  16. Mumbles says:

    Maybe it was mean-spirited but I am sick of people abusing the concept of “bullying.” A victim of bullying feels powerless and helpless. The columnist has no power over the wealthy granddaughter of the queen.

  17. April May says:

    It’s funny how Eugenie is “copying” the Sussexes and not how both parties copied Sophie and Edward when they married there. The whole having people in the grounds started with them not Harry and Meghan.

  18. Josie says:

    Jan Moir is awful. The Daily Mail is a trashy rag. Beatrice and Eugenie seem like lovely people who have endured a lot of negative press attention thanks to their parents, their whole lives.

    That all having been said, Peter & Autumn Phillips and Zara & Mike Tindall had publicly-funded low-key royal weddings — Peter & Autumn’s was even at Windsor so we know how it can look. (As an aside, it’s a bit of a fiction that Zara and Peter live simple lives, their mother supports them in relatively lavish style). It’s not crazy to think that the York girls are being elevated because of Andrew’s ego rather than any inherent public interest. (Yes, they have certain claims to status within the Firm because of laws on the books, but Edward gave that up on behalf of his children and it’s sexist that Anne’s kids never had the option. Andrew really needs to rethink his choices on the girls’ behalf.)

  19. EM says:

    Edward, Peter and Harry had Windsor weddings, complete with carriage rides. Eugenie is having one too. What’s the big deal?

    • Josie says:

      It’s been a while, but so far as I can remember, there was no lottery for the public to observe Peter & Autumn’s arrival and departure from within the castle grounds. Zara & Mike were married in Edinburgh, where again there was no formal arrangement for a public viewing. Neither of them gave TV interviews when their engagements were announced. The carriage ride is just a nice way to get from point A to point B, and I doubt anyone begrudges them that, but the rest of it does look like a bit much. This whole “my daughters are are blood princesses and should be treated accordingly” just doesn’t fly.

      Moir is terrible and we should ignore her. But it’s hardly surprising that people are seizing on every little detail of this wedding that reinforces Andrew’s image as a self-important git.

      Also, The Daily Mail was quite vicious about Peter’s wedding, too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021316/Peter-Phillipss-Hello-wedding-Autumn-grasping-vulgar-damaging-Queen.html

      • notasugarhere says:

        6000 people showed up to Zara and Mike’s wedding in Scotland. If a crowd of people chose to show up at Eugenie and Jack’s wedding but security preparations had not been made? You know Eugenie and Jack would be blamed for anything that happened. Would it be better for them to shut down the entire village of Windsor for the day? Or are these two supposed to slink off and marry in a tiny registry office wedding without their friends and family?

      • Josie says:

        Hey, I like Eugenie — she’s probably one of my favorites in that generation! I hope she does absolutely everything she wants to do at her wedding, because I love to see her smile. She beams. And I bet plenty of people turn out, just like they did for Edward & Sophie, who also did the ticket lottery thing. If it’s a security thing, though, present it that way.

        My point is that between following the Phillips kids and following the Wales boys, she’s going the Wales route, and that’s going to bring down a certain amount of mockery because of her parents. Moir is terrible. We need to ignore her. But it’s naive to think no one else will write this story, because it fits right in with everything written about Andrew for the last ten years.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Peter and Zara live off their mother on an estate fixed up with taxpayer money. Secured with taxpayer money. They live in her St James Palace apartment when they’re in London. Peter sold his wedding photos and embarrassed the royal family. Peter also ended up in a scandal involving making money off of a big public event about the Queen.

        Anne’s kids are not “clean” but fewer people pay attention because the press doesn’t go after them. They’re too busy attacking Beatrice and Eugenie to see what Anne, Peter, Zara are getting away with.

  20. Helonearth says:

    I think a lot of this is coming from Prince Andrew. Prince Charles has made it very clear that once he is king the civil list will be cut back. Andrew doesn’t agree and will do anything to ensure his family continues to collect the cash. Making the girls more visible is his way of trying to ensure that happens.

  21. Sansa says:

    That article was nasty. The fact is her granny is the Queen, and if Granny wants to let them marry at the chapel in Windsor with a carriage ride etc. then the DM needs to stfu since we all know 1000 percent the pictures of this event will be all over their site . They shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them.

  22. perplexed says:

    After reading the article, I didn’t think it was that mean to Eugenie herself. Well, okay, it was kind of mean to her when it said she had done nothing of note (but I’ve heard the same about all of the royals at some point).

    But I now understand why Sarah Ferguson responded– the article made fun of Sarah as much as it did Eugenie! The article basically said the mother was vulgar and that the daughter was following in her footsteps. So I’m not even sure if Sarah Ferguson was offended on her daughter’s behalf — she was likely offended on her own! The article outright said she shouldn’t be like her mom. No wonder Sarah was more upset for herself than her daughter, imo.

    Until I clicked on that article, I had no idea Eugenie did an interview for this engagement. That did seem a little weird for someone who is 9th in line.

  23. OkieOpie says:

    Sarah is talking about her like she is a child. The woman is 28 ffs. Anyway, yes, it is mean spirited but it is not entirely inaccurate. It is ridiculous for her to have such an extravagant wedding. I have a feeling it is her father who is pushing for that considering he has always been so grandiose.