Jack Brooksbank won’t take a title, but Princess Eugenie is keeping hers


The wedding of Charlie Van Straubenzee and Daisy Jenks at St. Mary the Virgin Church in Frensham

Here are some photos of Princess Eugenie of York and Jack Brooksbank at the wedding of Charlie Van Straubenzee and Daisy Jenks, the same wedding that Prince Harry and Meghan attended on Meg’s birthday. I just never got around to posting these photos, so enjoy. I’m sad to see that Eugenie’s wedding-guest attire game peaked years ago, at William and Kate’s wedding. She looks like a middle-America secretary!

Anyway, last month the Daily Mail reported that Jack Brooksbank was not going to ask for a title, and one would not be offered to him. He’s fine being Normal Jack, Duke of Nothing, and Eugenie is fine with it too. There were some differing opinions about whether it was even possible that the Queen would have offered him a title. My take? I think the Queen probably would have been more than willing to offer Jack some minor title, like a viscount or a marquess, but only if Jack had wanted one and only if Prince Andrew had really pressed his mom about it. My take is that Eugenie wanted to avoid the drama and that Jack actually is fine without a title. Well, here’s a confirmation of that: People Magazine says there’s no title, and that Eugenie will still be a princess.

Princess Eugenie and fiancé Jack Brooksbank will be getting the royal treatment at their Oct. 12 wedding at Windsor Castle — but will the new member of the family receive a royal title? Queen Elizabeth handed her grandson, Prince Harry, a dukedom on his wedding day to Meghan Markle in May, officially making them the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. However, Jack will not be receiving a royal title — he’ll simply be known as “Mr. Brooksbank.” According to the BBC, Eugenie “will keep her royal title when she marries Mr. Brooksbank,” but she will have the “option” to take his last name.

In 2016, Eugenie’s father Prince Andrew refuted reports that he had demanded titles for “any future husbands” of daughters Eugenie or Beatrice. At the time, Andrew said he simply wanted his children to be considered “modern, working young women who happen to be members of the royal family.”

Despite appearing alongside her family at royal events and supporting charitable causes, Eugenie works as a director at the London art gallery, Hauser & Wirth. The 28-year-old is “is throwing herself into it,” an insider recently told PEOPLE of her job.

Meanwhile, Jack, 31, works with George Clooney’s tequila business, Casamigos. He “is a really lovely, very kind, down-to-earth man,” said a family friend. “He is great fun and has a great sense of humor. He is the first to laugh with you and not at you, and he is a practical joker, in a good way!”

[From People]

To take a title or to not take a title? I imagine for a lot of men, it’s quite a quandary, especially when your blood-princess wife is still going to go by her de facto maiden name, which involves an HRH. They’ll be known as HRH Princess Eugenie of York and Mr. Brooksbank… and they’ll live in royal accommodations, and they’ll do some royal work while they’re both holding down regular-person jobs. This is either “modern royalty” or it’s a mess. You choose! I find I do have some begrudging respect for Jack though – it must be tempting, the idea that he could suddenly insist that he really does need a title.

The wedding of Charlie Van Straubenzee and Daisy Jenks at St. Mary the Virgin Church in Frensham

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

62 Responses to “Jack Brooksbank won’t take a title, but Princess Eugenie is keeping hers”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chaine says:

    Yes, her outfit is very dull, but surely by this age she also realizes the press will be there and doesn’t want to draw attention away from the bride by wearing anything particularly flashy. So it’s appropriate IMO. Also, someone please fit her for a proper support undergarment!

  2. Jane says:

    If Kate and Meghan get titles for marrying a prince then I would have loved to see Jack get a title for marrying a princess.

    It’s going to be a mess.

    • Peg says:

      Why? she is not a working Royal.
      Kate and Meghan married sons of the Heir.
      They will be living almost rent free in Kensington Palace.

    • hershey says:

      I suspect she and her sister will wind up working for the royal family when they are older. It sounds like Charles would prefer they don’t. But right now his mother’s cousins are still doing huge amounts of boring grunt work. The boring kind that doesn’t get press. These people are in their eighties.

      Charles siblings are all over 50. 20 years from now all those hands will gone. Williams kids will still be students or in the military.

      Which leaves the cousins in Williams generation. I’m thinking William and his brother won’t want pick up all the slack for the older generation. So, it’s some more of the Queens grandkids will need to step up. At least for a while until Williams offspring are out of their 20s.

      • Nic919 says:

        Diana was working full time as Princess of Wales in her 20s. Charles also was working in his 20s as well. There is no reason for adults in their 20s not to do full time royal work if they aren’t in the military. William got to dally around but his children will not have that luxury if they don’t have cousins to help.

      • Addie says:

        Charles, Harry and William have already said they plan to streamline aka nowhere near as many charities, just a select few like the Heads Together thing. means they can do less work. Doubt they’ll ask for the public to pay them less!

        As for Eugenie, she has it both ways: keeps a title, doesn’t have to do any royal work for it and lives with all the privilege. I doubt she and Jack pay market rent. Sweet deal.

  3. Kimma1216 says:

    Those sunglasses…yikes!

  4. merrit says:

    Seems rather egotistical to keep the title, when she could be The Lady Eugenie Brooksbank (has a lovely ring!). That being said, though I may not give up my title, I would just keep my head down and not give interviews complaining about how difficult my life is.

    • guest says:

      Egotistical? Lol. Women shouldn’t have to give up their titles once they are married. Do you expect the same from the men?

    • MissM says:

      She will lose the “of York” bit and become HRH The Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank. Anne’s title before she was made The Princess Royal was HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs. Phillip’s. Her princess title is hers for life. Even if she decided to drop it she would still legally be Princess Eugenie (like Lady Louise Windsor is legally Princess Louise, her parents just prefer her to not have a royal title).

    • Addie says:

      Agree with you merrit. Whinging about how hard life is when dressed to the nine’s, never having to worry about money or housing or anything much deservedly gets her criticism. best to shut up and enjoy the good life.

  5. N. says:

    After begging the Queen for years to make her a full-time working royal with alle the perks that come with it, did anyone really think she would give up her title?
    Must be oh-so bitter for Fergie’s daughters to watch Catherine and Meghan take “their” place in the Palace…

    • magnoliarose says:

      Absolutely. Andrew and Fergie probably seethe when the Duchesses are referred to as princesses or when they grab all the headlines.

      • Jan90067 says:

        But the Duchesses are never referred to as Princesses unless their *full* titles are being used, ie: for Kate: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn (Scotland), Lady Carrickfergus (NI) , and if need be “Princess William”. They are not Princesses on their own, or of their own names. That’s a press invention started with Princess Di.

        Bea and Eug are titled HRH Princess B/E as they are the all important *cough* “Blood Princesses*

      • magnoliarose says:

        Oh, I know. But the press used to sometimes say, Princess Kate. Like they did Princess Di not realizing the difference. In America anyway.

    • guest says:

      Why should she give up her title just because she is getting married??! Harry, William, Anne etc didn’t. Anne is still HRH Princess.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Don’t recall stories of either Eugenie or Beatrice begging to be working royals. Andrew possibly on their behalf, but not the York sisters themselves. It was assumed they would be until maybe 10 years ago, when the idea of streamlining way way down was discussed.

      Eugenie seems happy out of the limelight and not being a working royal. She does plenty of voluntary charity work on her own. No need for her to give up her title which is hers by birth. Other royal princesses in the BRF weren’t required to so I see no reason to apply special rules to Beatrice and Eugenie to make *just them* lose their titles.

  6. Lizabeth says:

    I had read her title after marriage would be “HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank.” But maybe PEOPLE mag knows better.

  7. Pantoum says:

    Long time lurker, but this one got my dander up, so here we go….
    1. It’s administrative assistant, not secretary.
    2. This is much more “mother of the bride” or “like she bought it at Sears” rather than the double misnomer given here. American style is largely defined by class, not location, with a few exceptions (such as Denver, Savannah, etc…and I’m probably talking about white people style here, since that’s what I know). If someone can afford Walmart, they’ll look similar whether in New Jersey or Iowa. If someone can afford REI, they’ll look similar whether in Seattle or Minneapolis (Seattle reeeeally reminded me of the Twin Cities). If someone can afford Anthropologie, they’ll look similar whether in Milwaukee or Boston.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Disagree. All you have to do is fly to airports in different parts of the country and you can see the differences in clothing/hairstyles. You can see the people who are arriving home and the people who greet them at the baggage claim and then venture out into the city or town and see the differences. Chicagoans don’t look like New Yorkers collectively and they look different from Bostonians who look different from Miami natives who look different from Northwesterners who look different from Texans and so on. I mean when you take them in as a whole.
      Yes, there will be similarities if people all shopped from the same stores but even then the stores in Des Moines aren’t going to be same as in Beverly Hills. The Midwest is more visually socially conservative and you won’t see Portland Hipsters in large clusters or people with tattoo sleeves working in doctor’s offices.
      It is a stereotype in some ways but it was also just a joke.

      • Olive says:

        @magnoliarose but the Midwest has big cities that AREN’T socially conservative – in fact, since you brought up Portland as a comparison, Minneapolis was the city Portlandia was actually based on, and is constantly in competition with Portland over who has the better city for biking. and Minneapolis usually wins. You can’t just throw out “Midwest is more visually socially conservative” and compare the Midwest (a huge region with contains multiple states and cities) with Portland (one city).

      • magnoliarose says:

        @Olive that is why I used generalizations. Portland gives Brooklyn a run for its money as far as hipsters and street fashion. Portlandia was filmed in the Portland area. Minneapolis was the early “inspiration” for the show but it wasn’t what the show was about.
        You are referring to lifestyle-biking and so forth but I am talking about fashion only. Nothing is wrong with the Midwest at all but it isn’t edgy or ground zero for fashion. I never said there weren’t other things about it that were lovely and nice.
        I only used Portland as an example but if I said the entire West Coast (Seattle, San Francisco, LA etc.) as opposed to the Midwest then I still stand by my assertion.

    • indian says:

      I disagree, actually. When I’m returning from the coasts, I can always tell which people are from the midwest and who’s from which coast. Very easy to tell!

    • BeanieBean says:

      That’s not how clothing stores work. They stock what people in the local market will buy. Walmart in DC will carry different clothing that Walmart in Dodge City, etc.

    • himmiefan says:

      All I know is that no one is as well dressed at the airport as they are in Houston.

  8. Lex says:

    She definitely shouldn’t give up her title, no matter what he does

  9. Lanne says:

    Sorry to get all pedantic on folks, but marquess is not a minor title. It’s a really high title, above earl even. I don’t think queen could give it because it’s not a royal title but a hereditary aristocratic one.

  10. TheOriginalMia says:

    Eugenie is a blood princess. She is a granddaughter of the reigning monarch. Why should she give up her title? No one else has. Zara could have had a title, but her father didn’t take one. Louise is already a princess and will take on the moniker when her father becomes Duke of Edinburgh. This reminds me of the argument made on royal forums about Princess Madeleine.

    ETA: Regarding Louise…according to BP, she will never be known as Princess Louise. She will always be Lady Louise and her brother will be Viscount Severn (eventually Earl).

    • Snappyfish says:

      I came in w/a question. So the first 2 sons of the Monarch (which Charles will one day be) are the Prince of Wales & the Duke of York. Currently Charles and Andrew. When the day comes when Charles becomes King the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will become the Prince and Princess of Wales.

      What happens to the Duke of York. It would technically become Harry’s. Will Charles take the York title from Andrew who he has been trying to minimize for some time? If Harry become the Duke of York (2nd son of the sovereign) what becomes of Andrew and his daughters who are currently styled Princesses of York. Which are the rightful titles of the children of the 2nd son of the sovereign?

      I noted someone mentioned Edward would become Duke of Edinburgh but don’t know how that fits since the title was created for Phillip. Help!

      • Nic919 says:

        The Duke of York is not automatically for the second son of the monarch. It is not a title like the Duke of Cornwall which automatically goes to the first son of the monarch. So William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge when the Queen dies. (He gets access to the Duchy incomes automatically as well). The Prince of Wales title must be bestowed by the monarch and while it’s likely that Charles will bestow it on William, it won’t happen right away. Charles was a boy when his grandfather died and didn’t receive it until he was a teen.
        So Harry may never be Duke of York. He might get it if Andrew dies early on, but if he doesn’t, the title will likely be kept for use by Louis.

        As for the Duke of Edinburgh, while it was created for Phillip, there has been discussion that Edward agreed to become only Earl of Wessex with the expectation that the ducal title would go to him since Charles and Andrew were already dukes. This could easily be arranged by letters patent. In the past all male children of the monarch were given ducal titles. Edward didn’t go for one because support for royal extravagance was at a low. But current dukes like the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester are descendants of male children behind the number one and number two position. Their children will no longer be considered royal dukes when they inherit the title.

      • Tina says:

        Yes, and to add, it is theoretically possible that Andrew could remarry and have a son, so the Duke of York title could be inherited. This will remain the technical case until he dies. And I can’t see Charles giving Duke of York to Harry at any stage. He already has a dukedom, and there aren’t that many left. George will be Cornwall and Prince of Wales, of course, but if York isn’t kept for Louis he will likely have to have something like Clarence.

  11. Karen says:

    They know handing out titles to minor royals’ spouses would not go down well with the public these days.

    The York princesses seem like nice girls, but let’s be honest, most people in Britain don’t give a toss about them, and they certainly won’t give a toss about their husbands and children. I’m sure most Brits wouldn’t even recognize Mr. Brooksbank in the street. Eugenie and Beatrice are better off pursuing independent lives and careers as they are firmly in the margins of royal life anyway. Giving their husbands titles would be counter-productive in this respect, it would be seen as a desire to hold on to the royal gravy train rather than being modern, working women.

  12. Ravine says:

    They’re doing the same thing as Princess Madeleine and… whathisface. Her husband. Chris Something? It seems to work for them. I would assume that in this case though, their kids will probably be “____ Brooksbank” rather than Prince/Princess _____. Which seems fair to me. The BRF doesn’t need dozens of HRHs to function.

  13. Eleonor says:

    All this title thing makes me eyeroll, seriously. And I don’t even know why.

    • Addie says:

      Maybe because it’s all made-up tosh? A family giving itself titles in this day and age when we have progressed well beyond the need or belief in royalty? My favourite useless award is the Queen’s Family Order – “here’s a trinket I shall bestow on you if you get off your slack asses and do what I say. And by not having one will set you apart as totally useless and lazy.”

  14. MaryContrary says:

    The Queen’s first cousin, Princess Alexandra, was married to a commoner who never took a title either. This isn’t a “new” thing.

    • Nic919 says:

      The precedent was set with princess Alexandra. They were never going to deviate from it. Anne and Margaret were different because they were children of the monarch. But I believe that Anne’s husband refusing the title has set the precedent for daughters of the monarch as well.

  15. babypeanut says:

    I saw the cutest picture of Eugenie and her sister. Eugenie is in profile looking at her sister, and Bea is sticking her tongue out. I like how close they are.

  16. Cee says:

    Eugenie will lose the York territorial denomination (as un unmarried daughter of the DoY) and will add the Mrs right behind her own given name – HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank

    Also, Marquess is one of the highest titles. If we’re talking “low titles” then Baronet would do.

  17. StoryMummy says:

    Good on him for not taking a title. Bad move on her for not eventually just moving onto
    Private life completely, including not living on BRF related properties. She’s free to live in one of her grandmother’s private estates. And boy, the York Princesses are homely looking women.

  18. Ib says:

    Does this mean their children won’t hace titles? I can’t see andrew being happy about that AT ALL

  19. YankLynn says:

    Not sure if this link works but PopSugar is one place I saw that dress of Eugenie’s without her jacket. I stared and stared but it appears to have an underarm cutaway/peep that shows skin but also a flappy piece of fabric in that underarm area. Very strange design to me — or this one of those dresses that you can see the design better on a super tall, rail thin model but on normal women everyone has to stare to figure out what’s happening there …
    https://www.popsugar.com/fashion/photo-gallery/45140413/image/45140423/Princess-Eugenie-Mr-Boho-Sunglasses-Daisy-Jenks-Wedding