Princess Eugenie’s wedding costs are apparently getting way out of hand

Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank in the Picture Gallery at Buckingham Palace in London after they announced their engagement

We’re less than two months away from Princess Eugenie’s Windsor Castle wedding. It’s a strange thing to discuss, because the York princesses and their half-public/half-private positions elicit strong reactions from many people. They’re “blood princesses,” they are HRHs, they are granddaughters of the Queen and daughters of HRH the Duke of York. The Duke has spent years arguing that Beatrice and Eugenie should have bigger roles in public life, that they should be full-time working royals. Prince Charles won’t allow it – Charles’ idea for a streamlined monarchy does not involve giving much support or many duties to the Yorks. So Beatrice and Eugenie are blood princesses living in royal palaces, and Eugenie works full-time for an art gallery, and she’s marrying some regular dude who will not be taking a title.

This half-public/half-private oddness has extended to Eugenie’s wedding too. There will be cameras, and the wedding will be broadcast to the 1200 random people who win the “who wants to stand near the chapel” lottery tickets. But will the wedding be broadcast on TV? I don’t know. Eugenie will also be riding in a carriage and it will very much be a “princess wedding,” because that’s what people want to see. That’s one of the big reasons why the Windsors still exist: for pomp, for weddings, for fashion and for gossip. But various politicians are complaining about the cost.

Fury has erupted after it emerged taxpayers are facing a huge £2million security bill for Princess Eugenie’s wedding. The minor royal, 28, who is ninth in line to the throne, will marry tequila brand ambassador Jack Brooksbank, 32, at St George’s Chapel in October.

Extra firearms officers may have to be drafted in as security is beefed up amid increased terror fears since they announced their engagement in January. But campaigners have blasted the move, with one Labour MP calling the huge expense ‘an outrage.’ It was first estimated to cost £750,000, but the bill has spiralled as sources said her father Prince Andrew has demanded a similarly glitzy event for his younger daughter with Sarah Ferguson, the Daily Mirror reports.

Emma Dent Coad, Labour MP for Kensington – where Eugenie and Jack live in Kensington Palace, told the paper: ‘In these times of heightened security risks it is irresponsible for a minor member of the royal family to have a high profile, very public wedding: ‘This may be the time to review the role and cost of minor royals.’

And Chris Williamson, Labour MP for Derby North, told the publication: ‘It really is an outrage when you’ve got people sleeping rough and gripped by poverty that people are indulging in this conspicuous consumption. No one else gets their wedding paid for by the public purse and they’ve got the resources to do it themselves.’

Eugenie carries out no royal duties is determined to enjoy an open-top carriage procession down Windsor High Street with her new husband. Her sister Beatrice, 30, will be maid of honour and Prince William’s children George, five, and Charlotte, three, are expected to be a page boy and flower girl. Dozens of officers will mount searches across the route in advance and no drones may fly over the event in advance.

[From The Daily Mail]

What’s the cost-benefit analysis though? I don’t doubt that security costs will be steep – perhaps not THIS steep – but what are the benefits? Will people plan their days around going to Windsor to see Eugenie’s wedding? Will they be shopping at the local stores and eating at the local restaurants? Will the TV stations broadcast the wedding and get those valuable ad dollars? I don’t know the answer to any of these questions. I do feel sorry for Eugenie though – she just wanted to have a nice wedding. I think it might have been a bad move to invite the 1200 randos to watch though?

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

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

273 Responses to “Princess Eugenie’s wedding costs are apparently getting way out of hand”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. sharron says:

    There is little support for the York girls from most UK taxpayers, so I’m not surprised this isn’t popular. I’m pretty vexed having to pay for this, they are not ‘working’ Royals and whilst I gather they are quite nice IRL (though I only hear that on here) this smacks of ‘pay for me, peasants’.

    • Aoife says:

      All pushed for by their wastrel of a father, I assume.

    • caty says:

      So you must still be mad that Peter Phillips’ now wife Autumn rode to St George’s chapel in a state Bentley and they rode in a carriage after their wedding then huh? I think we can safely assume there were protection officers there and police, yet strangely I do not recall any of this hand wringing over his wedding.

      • Gine says:

        There was absolutely controversy about Peter and Autumn’s wedding when it happened. None of these issues are new or exclusive to the Yorks. If the conversation about them seems more heated, well, they do the least in a family that already does very little.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t recall Beatrice or Eugenie pocketing hundreds of thousands in a Celebrate Grannie scheme pulled over on the public.

      • Gine says:

        @notasugarhere No, they just take 13 vacations in one year on the taxpayer’s dime and….huh. Can’t think of anything else. Almost like they don’t do anything!
        Lol, all of these people are pampered moochers. Eug and Bea being the laziest and least imaginative moochers is not an accomplishment.

      • lobbit says:

        I don’t think Autumn and Peter did a full on carriage ride through Windsor, though. Maybe I’m mistaken but I thought they rode the carriage from the chapel to the site of the reception.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Gine, no they do not. Any security they have is paid by them or their father privately, he doesn’t get to use Sovereign Grant money for it. They both inherited several million from their great-grandmother, as did Peter and Zara. HM also invested several million for B&E, all private funds, at the time of their parents’ divorce. The money that would have gone to Sarah was invested for the girls instead.

        All of that Beatrice bashing from a couple years ago? Turned out to be weekend trips, 1-2 days, several for weddings. Most related to her then boyfriend Dave’s business trips and him (likely) using her to open doors for his business.

        Both Beatrice and Eugenie have jobs, Eugenie in London and Beatrice in NYC. For several years they had more patronages and did more charity work than Kate Middleton. And B&E are not required to do any, as none of it “counts”.

        Lobbit if they rode from St George’s Chapel to Frogmore House (where the reception was), that is a significant carriage drive. Harry and Meghan drove that distance in a car.

      • paddingtonjr says:

        IIRC, there was also controversy over Peter and Autumn’s wedding because Hello Magazine paid for exclusive coverage so it wasn’t all on the taxpayers and/or BRF. I think minor royals can have whatever wedding they want as long as it is paid with private funds. The reality is, at this point in time, “blood princess” or not, Eugenie is not a “working” royal like H&M.

      • anne says:

        peter sold his wedding picture to hello mag

      • lobbit says:

        @notasugarhere – yes, but a ride through the town means more money spent on security – you need (more) police officers and steel barriers to line the entire length of the procession. If they use the carriage as transportation to the reception, there’s no need for any of that because the roads between St. George’s and Frogmore House are closed to the public.

      • Lizabeth says:

        @Paddingtonjr- I’m not sure that Peter and Autumn selling pictures of their wedding and reception (including pictures taken of people who didn’t know they’d be made public much less be sold) saved “the taxpayer” any money. So far as I can tell, that scheme just made money for the couple based on their royal status. It didn’t affect the taxpayer-funded security costs.

      • hershey says:


        Think one of them took an absurd 17 vacations one year, on dad’s dime. I know he receives public money, has some private money, and no clue which he used to fund 17 vacays with.

        Had friends who took an expensive ridiculous break once every 3 weeks on dad’s dime during college because they “needed” to get away for a few days. Stupid. But since not famous nobody cares.

        These girls make the news. So even if it was private money, spoiling them like this is stupid. And I’m not saying it was private money. May very well have been public money. It makes them look bad now.

        Princess Alexandra was a granddaughter of a king. She had a really fancy wedding in London. In the 1960s. Margaret too.

        Andrew had the full works at Westminster. Harry is a second son of an eventual monarch, his was scaled back to Windsor. Edwards was as well.

        All grancchildren other than William have stayed out of London. Windsor seems the drop down location for those not going to Westminster.

        Eugenies place in the family would seem to put her into the Windsor-level wedding event. With the Queen providing the venue for her grandchild, these wedding are not likely to downgraded beyond something like Windsor.

        No idea about how much this wedding should cost. Cost of security sadly keeps going up because risk everywhere is rising.

        Obviously anything more over the top than her cousins is wrong. William doesn’t count. If she is in line with Peter, Harry, and her uncle Edward, it would be hard to say it’s an outrage. If she’s not good enough for Windsor, they all need to be downgraded if not directly in line.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, all shown to be short 1-2 day weekend trips, some to weddings. Most related to Dave pressing the flesh for his job and using Beatrice to open doors. Meaning they were likely paid by his company.

        Wherever Andrew gets his private money, it is his. It wasn’t Sovereign Grant money that paid for the Swiss chalet, and it isn’t SG money that pays for his daughters’ rent or security.

      • sharron says:

        Hardly hand wringing, Caty, stop clutching your pearls so much. And yes, I get annoyed at any extra costs like this, when it comes out of the same pot of money allocated to normal policing & public services, as that is just too stretched right now. We get that the main Royals need protection, but this ‘public show’ isn’t wanted by the taxpayer and the cost sure isn’t appreciated.

    • jwoolman says:

      Isn’t the security cost inevitable because higher ranking royals will be present? Maybe that expense really shouldn’t be considered an extra cost.

      We have a similar problem here with security issues for Presidents and their families. People yell about the costs, but it’s really the only way to give them a chance at a normal enough life. We can’t expect them to stay hidden all together in a group in the White House basement and we shouldn’t expect nominal spouses who hate each other to be stuck living together… So big security expenses for a number of people in different places at different times have to be accepted as part of the deal.

      In this case, if you want royals, you have to provide security because they are targets that ordinary people are not. It was rather silly to let Harry go off into combat for that reason, but that’s also part of the providing a reasonably normal life deal.

      • Henny says:

        Common sense. I’ll have none of that. Be gone!

      • Deedee says:

        I would be okay if ivanka, her Hubble, don ass jr. And Eric and Lara stayed in the basement. Tiff and Barron can stay in the laundry room, however.

      • Addie says:

        I think the security expenses go up enormously with the carriage ride and having 1200 people milling around. This is above and beyond the normal security expenses. Both Charles and the Queen attended Amanda Knatchbull’s wedding; I’m pretty sure the security expenses were just what would normally be provided, maybe a bit more, but nothing like what has been quoted here.

    • Jasmine18 says:

      As a Brit, the issue to many over here is not that some security is necessary. It’s the fact that the wedding now involves a coach ride on public roads – hence the extra policing to secure the route. AND the costs come out of the same police budget already depleted by the Harry-Meghan wedding, not to mention austerity funding cuts.

      This ostentation smacks of Prince Andrew’s own prickly sense of self importance. I’m just surprised the Queen didn’t realise what a PR disaster this would be.

      • hershey says:

        Feel like this wedding might be a litmus test of sorts for the future marriages of non working royals.

        If there is a large turnout in Windsor, and large numbers of tv viewers, the cost might be justified in a public relations sense.

        And if it’s a flop, it will probably be the last carriage parading around Windsor of this generation.

        Hopefully if the British do not fully enjoy and pay attention to this wedding, the format will change in future. For the benefit of all.

        If the public interest is not there for this wedding, Eugenie will be the first to pay for the mistake. If she sets out for her parade, and has visibly smaller, half hearted crowds, she will be getting a slap in the face before she gets to her reception.

    • Karen says:

      I didnt know if there was much comment when Bea turned 25 and she had an elaborate Snow White themed party, hiring little people to be the 7 Dwarfs. Pretty tasteless for a 25 year old.

    • FLORC says:

      Working royals aren’t working half as much as these ladies. And other royals are working 5xs as much as senior royals.
      Let’s stop with that. Charles has a cronies benefit system. Not by merit. I like Charles too, but not with how he continues to penalize his nieces to punish his brother. And that’s exactly what is happening.

      And… if the yorks were princes…. no one would blink an eye at them.

      • hershey says:

        There are several older royals of the queens generation that work for the royal family representing The queen and working as patrons on behalf of charities. They are in these roles because 50 years ago, if you were an HRH, that was the deal.

        They get local coverage only, no fanfare.

        Retirement is coming soon for this group, it will be interesting to see if there will be an expection that others fill their shoes, or if their work just stops.

        Edward and spouse were originally supposed to get jobs. Which was an off point disaster.

        Fortunately for them, more hands were needed for royal duties. These days they haul off for weddings and such that no one else wants to do.

        Think it will come down to how quickly the older generation retire, and where the workload levels off at.

        Charles has made a huge deal about slimming it to just his sons. But he only has two of them. Williams kids are around 25 or 30 years from duty if they do university and military. Harrys are not born yet.

        That’s a fair amount of work for a smaller number of people.

        Down the road, the senior royals may wish they had not dismissed the Yorks so quickly.

    • Addie says:

      It’s unfortunate that both York girls get a lot of grief because of their awful parents but in this case, Eugenie isn’t helping herself.

      First of all, the York girls are not half public/ half private. They are wholly private citizens, whose Granny happens to be the Queen. They do not have special blood running through their veins. They do not perform any royal duties beyond helping out Granny on occasion. They are not on the public payroll, except through what Granny gives to them and their father to maintain themselves, mostly under the radar to avoid scrutiny. And let’s get it into perspective, when the York girls volunteer their time to causes, they join millions of other people who do exactly the same thing.

      Second, having a carriage ride invites a lot of additional security expense, as does inviting 1200 people to cheer on the couple for personal vanity and BRF PR purposes. If Eugenie and parents want these accoutrements, they should have them … but must pay the £2M themselves because the occasion is a private family wedding with personal PR benefits.

      One of the many problems with the WIndsor’s is that they are so utterly dependent on the taxpayer to fund an extraordinary unearned lifestyle. They are less than transparent with public monies. And they have worked out how to con the taxpayer into paying for their private pleasures – yielding NOTHING for the public – by deliberately creating a public event from what is a private family occasion.

      The above is not the only such occasion where taxpayers are hoodwinked by this greedy family. William attended his friend Jecca’s wedding, a private event with the trip meant to be paid for privately; by adding in a meeting with a government official, it became a state-funded trip. sparing William’s private funds. Harry and Meghan will be attending Invictus in Sydney, a private event. Yet, by tacking on a royal tour (which no-one needs, it is of no benefit to Australia) the taxpayer will be charged for all aspects of travel and wardrobe, security and so on. Fund the Queen for the role she occupies; the rest should be off the public teat.

    • hershey says:

      Ridiculous cost is a thing over here in States too. Huge embarrassment that I was bitterly disappointed to see take office.

      Costs for him and his huge pile of offspring and grandkids so crazy compared to normal presidents.

      But he technically won. So unless that win is found to be illegitimate, he is my countries head of state.

      We get another say in 2020.

      Brits can have a say when they can demonstrate enough support for a position to show that a referendum is in public interest.

      For those unhappy about costs, work to enact change. Legislation that limits the role of the family. Or a referendum to end it.

      If support for the family and the funding is high enough to prevent change, it is what it is.

  2. Runcmc says:

    I don’t usually have an opinion on the York princesses but this is comically over-the-top. I can see why she would WANT the big wedding after attending Will/Kate’s and Harry/Meghan’s but she simply isn’t a senior enough royal to spend that kind of money. Also I don’t think she’s a popular enough royal to get this kind of show… I simply can’t picture all those crazy souvenirs being made of their faces. Shoot I read the article like a minute ago and I already forgot her fiancé’s name.

    • Nikki says:

      Ha, ha: I loved “forgot his name already”! And I agree with your comment 100%.

    • hershey says:

      Since her cousins wedding is so fresh in everyone’s minds, and someone unwisely chose the same format, Eugenie will have a huge letdown morning of her wedding if the crowds don’t show.

      If I were her grandmother, I would want to know my granddaughters wedding would be a joyous happy occasion.

      It won’t be if hers is a letdown following Harrys. Just from a personal family standpoint, feel like there is a chance mistakes have been made with this second wedding.

      Nobody wants their wedding to be a second. They should have chosen a fresh location and format. Or gotten Eugenie married first as the warm up to the bigger wedding.

  3. Digital Unicorn says:

    Eugenie wants to have the royal wedding she saw her cousins have but she’s not really a working royal so it can’t be justified plus given her who her father is he is def also pushing for her to get the ‘all bells and whistles’ royal wedding he thinks befits his children.

    Trust me they will not be lining the streets of windsor for her.

    • InquisitiveNewt says:

      @DigitalUnicorn On the other hand, she’s a Royal who is working. A tricky distinction.

    • Mac says:

      They are giving out 1,2000 tickets so fans, not protesters, line the streets.

      • Addie says:

        If you watch the Harry-Meghan carriage ride, there are audible ‘boos’ coming from some people lining the streets.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Peter wasn’t a working royal. Edward and Sophie weren’t supposed to be. Lady Helen Taylor wasn’t. They all had weddings at Windsor, only the last one didn’t have a carriage ride.

      • FLORC says:

        Good logic nota
        Unfortunately, this is the Yorks. Logic can’t be carried easily when hands are full with pitch forks and torches. Besides. This has never been about Eugenie.

      • Addie says:

        Times are tougher these days and people are becoming more critical of the institution as a whole, questioning their value. It’s not a race issue, as suggested when H and M had their ride; it’s institutional. If they want their rides or whatever, they should put their hands in their pockets, not the those of taxpayers. The police budget needs to cover all citizens not just a couple on a vanity ride.

      • hershey says:

        The royal family has been awkward adapting to the 1950s to today. When the Queen was a child and through her accession, HRHs represented the crown, received public money and had big fancy weddings. Usually Westminster.

        Now some of these people are in a messy no man’s land.

        And when all the queens HRH cousins retire, it will be interesting to see if the work easily slims to fewer royals. When queens children hang up their hats, Charles wants just his sons to be the family.

        Williams kids are a ling time from duties. And Harrys haven’t even been born. They may regret cutting out the lower ranking members of this generation down the road.

    • HyacinthBuckey says:

      Digital Unicorn likely all of the B&E and Andrew apologists on this site will watch the pathetic parade

  4. Hoopjumper says:

    “Tequila brand ambassador”. I forgot that was his job. Doesn’t make me feel super optimistic.

    • Amelie says:

      Hahaha I know, that sentence “The minor royal, 28, who is ninth in line to the throne, will marry tequila brand ambassador Jack Brooksbank, 32, at St George’s Chapel in October.” really gave me a laugh. Like the guy is only known for his association with tequila! I’m sure he has other good qualities! Eugenie likes him at least.

      • Becks1 says:

        One article posted here a week or two ago indicated that his family is really really wealthy (something about “one of the wealthiest families in England” or something) but I usually just see him described as the tequila ambassador, lol.

      • Malificent says:

        So is “tequila ambassador” replacing art history as the new college major for trust fund babies?

      • Jan90067 says:

        Tequila Ambassador is right up there with Nepotism/Insta Model now.

      • Mac says:

        And George and Amal get to attend two royal weddings.

      • Becks1 says:

        Alright I just googled to see and apparently my impression of ‘wealthiest families in England’ is mistaken, haha (but I know I read that somewhere, I cant believe the internet would steer me wrong!) but his family does have money. So “tequila brand ambassador who hangs out with George Clooney” does seem to be the new “art gallery director.”

      • Addie says:

        Posh boy job, not too taxing for his lifestyle.

    • Aud says:

      Damn. I didn’t know Ambassador de Tequila was an option when I was perusing potential life callings.

      • Maria says:

        In Jack’s defense, he did work his way up from server to bartender to club manager. He probably knows a lot about different wines etc. He comes a very wealthy family but to my knowledge has always held a job.

      • hoopjumper says:

        @maria, that’s interesting and not what I expected. Still maybe slightly dubious he’s putting in 40 hours? Like, he’s in hospitality like Will is in pilot-ry? But I’d be happy to be wrong.

  5. aquarius64 says:

    I think it’s a bad move. Eugenie is ninth in line to the throne, not a working royal, and this is not a historic wedding like Harry and Meghan’s. If she were a daughter of a future king or queen that’s different. This smells of Andrew wanting a grand wedding for his daughter so she and Beatrice will be seen as equals as Charles’ sons.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Of course it is! Petty Pedo Andy always feels slighted by not being first born, even though he is Mama’s favorite. And Fergie never met a freebie she wouldn’t grab with both hands, and ask for a doggie bag to take home more. I would bet *everything* it’s these two pushing for all the “extra” pomp of this wedding. But then again, Eug and Jack are inviting a sh*tload of “celebrities”….to match Harry and Meg? Maybe there IS some under-the-blanket rivalry and jealousy on Eug’s part, too, about not being an “official” royal on the dole?

      • Nic919 says:

        I am more inclined to think that it’s Andy and Fergie who want to compete with Harry and Meghan’s wedding. And with those two being the egomaniacs that they are, it’s probably easier for Eugenie to let them be.

    • Suki says:

      Why is Harry’s wedding historic, and this one isnt. Seems to me that neither one is.

      • passerby says:

        Ask yourself that question one more time, Suki. You know the answer, I have complete faith in you.

      • Guest says:

        Because Meghan is the token in that colonizing family and they just had to show how nice, unprejudiced, and diverse they are.. when they aren’t those things at all. The most elitist family in the world can never be modern in the true sense.

    • norah says:

      eugenie sd have had the sense to realise that she isnt that important and sd have had a smaller wedding – but i guess her father ‘s self importance has influenced her that much. she and her sister sd have known better

  6. Sensible says:

    They both need to take a leaf out of Anne’s kid’s books. Both Zara and Peter Phillips are just as close re bloodline as Eugenie and Beatrice and live a very nice life without being arseholes about it. This seems very much like an ego exercise by Prince Andrew against his brother. I am sure deep down Andrew thinks he should be PoW and not Charles. In my view it should have been Anne as Princess of Wales but the rules of course forbid such a thing.

    • L84Tea says:

      Absolutely all of this!

    • KNy says:

      Years ago I read somewhere (or saw in a TV documentary) that QE and PP wanted Anne to be next in line. I have never seen any report like that since but it always stuck in my head.

      • snappyfish says:

        Anne has always been Phillip’s Favorite. I loved the comment he made when she married Peter Phillips. “If it doesn’t eat grass and fart she really isn’t interested in it, He is the closest thing she has found”. They were/are wonderful equestrians. Zara followed that family tradition.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne is the only daughter which gives her some perks, and is most like Philip which is not a bonus. But Edward is Philip’s favourite. Andrew is HM’s, but Edward is Philip’s. Youngest, just like Philip, and the kid Philip could spend the most time with. Edward wasn’t the heir and PP was more settled into his role by then.

    • Gine says:

      Thank you. All the sympathic articles I’ve seen about the Yorks lately are baffling to me. Like I’m supposed to feel sorry for these grown women who have never had to lift a finger for themselves their whole lives, just because they’re not getting as much attention as their cousins? Please. Credit to Eugenie for at least having a job now, though. Does Bea do anything besides go on vacations and show up on red carpets?

    • Clare says:

      Sensible – you do realise that Zara had part of her wedding an Holyrood, with similar pomp and circumstance she being floated for Eugenie, right? That one wasn’t free for us sucker tax payers, either.

      I mean I agree that we shouldn’t have to pay for this shit, and that Andrew is an arse, and I like Zara…but Anne’s kids have for years had the perks of royal grandchildren – they just don’t get called out for it because they do it low key and because their mother isn’t an asshat like Andrew and Fergie.

      • Becks1 says:

        But even having it at Holyrood helped with the “optics” (I hate that word but I keep using it today, ha.) Zara and Mike got married shortly after Will and Kate and nothing about the wedding came off like they were trying to copy W&K. I’m sure the wedding still cost the government a great deal of money, but it just looked better than what is happening now.

      • Ardnamurchan says:

        But it didnt have the same pomp and circumstance at all.
        There were no ticket ballots to stand outside Canongate Kirk, there were no military bands, no carriage procession. It was just a wedding at the Kirk with the RF in attendance. They drove down to Holyrood in a Bentley.
        There was no broadcast and only one official photo was released.
        That’s a far cry from ticketed crowds and a full-on carriage procession through Windsor.

      • notasugarhere says:

        6,000 members of the public showed up and taxpayers paid the security to corral the crowds. Where was the outrage then? If something had happened and security hadn’t shown up? You know the royals, Zara and Mike would have been blamed.

      • Mac says:

        The police, not the royals, determine the level of security needed. Given that all of the major and many of the minor royals will be in the same location at the same time, it seems a lot of security will be needed.

      • Guest says:

        So Eugenie is not allowed to get married in the place she grew up?! Ridiculous.

      • Tina says:

        She can get married there, but if there was no ticketing, no appearance to the public and no carriage ride, security costs would be much less.

    • Morning Coffee says:

      I completely agree. I’m not sure why this should cost so much more, though. Security would be there anyway – the Queen will attend, as will Charles, William, George – the next 3 monarchs. Is it just the stupid carriage ride? If so, she should cut that or her father should pay for it.

      • hershey says:

        If the parade is poorly attended, it will be a bummer ride for her. And a ride through the town brings some risk to her, and everyone near her. Public included.

        A parade is expensive. But it is also a target. I hope it goes well enough to justify the downsides.

        It might have been better to choose a different venue for this wedding. Or she should have been made to go first, with a smaller wedding. Like an opening act for Harrys bigger one.

        What a mess two cousins, same location, same grandma hosting! In any family, this would be a stinky problem if the second grandchild felt slighted.

        Both grandchildren of queen. Neither will be king or queen. This would be a mess in private. But now there is the cost to the public fuss too.

        Someone in an office somewhere did not think this through. Just making Eugenie first would have prevented any one saying “But Harry had that”.

    • Sedanos says:

      I don’t get the “Chuck is streamlining the monarchy” business. It’s not like Princess Margaret’s kids are full time working royals. The idea that these people are being denied their birthright is hooey. The British monarchy is outdated, unnecessary, and the the main culprit in propping up the class system. But they do bring in all that tourism essential to the British economy. Without the monarchy it would be a wasteland, bereft of visitors. Like France.

      • LadyAnne says:

        Have you ever been to Paris? The Côte d’Azur in summer? Alsace at Christmas? « Bereft of visitors » LMFAO 🙄🙄🙄

      • Lady D says:

        Doesn’t France lead European countries in tourist visits? More tourists dollars are spent in France than anywhere else in the EU, including England.

      • Becks1 says:

        @LadyAnne, I think that was the point 🙂 She was being sarcastic.

      • Wisca says:

        Sedanos is being sarcastic.

      • Morning Coffee says:

        LadyAnne, that was sarcasm.

      • Jen says:

        The sarcarsm was great- revenue figures for the BRF are always inflated. I think the palaces would get plenty of interest on their own!

      • Tina says:

        @Jen, yes, and we’d be able to open the palaces to the public full time, as opposed to the limited times they are open now.

      • Guest says:

        The Royal tourist malarkey is such a myth!

      • hershey says:

        Basically it comes down to how many brits want them? When not enough do, a referendum will be organized.

        And than there will be an answer. If they are not wanted, much of the expense will stop.

        I have no idea how popular they are now, or will be after the Queen.

        But if enough of the public hate paying for them, a referendum will become possible.

    • aaa says:

      Eugenie is having the typical St. George’s Chapel at Windsor wedding that royals who are lower in succession than she is have had including her cousin Peter Phillips. Harry got the same arguments against the cost of his wedding because both he and Eugenie are marrying in the era of social media and online gossip where all it takes is one or two complaints being made for it to become a headline story on gossip oriented online new outlets and blogs.

      • Ardnamurchan says:

        I don’t think Peter Phillips’ wedding was at all public: no ticketed crowds, no carriage procession.
        Until Windsor Castle was opened in the 1990s to the public to pay for the fire repairs, all the royal weddings there were completely private affairs because the public never set foot inside the gates.

      • aaa says:

        Peter and Autumn had a post-nuptial carriage ride.

        In the modern era, before Windsor Castle became an option, weddings were held in London and included, at a minimum, the bride and groom getting a post-ceremony carriage ride.

        I don’t know about tickets but to me the tickets are not a perk but rather a form of crowd management.

      • notasugarhere says:

        aaa, that’s how I see the ticketing (just like Edward and Sophie did). Crowd management not a perk.

      • Mac says:

        More like crowd selection. They don’t want a bunch of protesters lining the procession route.

      • Guest says:

        Protestors would be thrown in jail if they dare try to protest. It happened with WK wedding and I’m pretty sure they did the same thing before Harry’s wedding. There’s no free speech, protestors are seen as criminals.

      • Tina says:

        LOL I was literally just at Windsor Castle last month, protesting Trump. We were having a grand old chat with the police.

      • hershey says:

        There were crowds and a carriage ride and lots of fuss in the pictures I saw. I’m not saying there should have been. But they did have the big thing after the church in the carriage.

    • Addie says:

      Don’t forget, though, that Anne’s kids live on her estate and receive all the goodies enjoyed by their mother eg security, upgrades to property etc. They also enjoy her residence when in London etc etc. They don’t make a big deal of it and as such, fly under the radar, but they still benefit enormously. They are not paying their own ways in life.

  7. L84Tea says:

    I’m looking forward to this wedding simply because everyday is a good day for a royal wedding (fashion and gossip wise), but I’ll admit, this comes off as incredibly tacky.

  8. Bella DuPont says:

    I’m completely indifferent……small, private wedding or public, televised shindig……either way suits me just fine.

    My only complaint is with the sunglasses…

  9. Pamm says:

    The windsors are rich, can’t they pay for it out of their personal pockets?

    • Jan90067 says:


      The BRF NEVER pays for ANYTHING they can get “for free” (ie: taxpayer or bumming off friends/connections). They are notoriously frugal/cheap! in that respect.

  10. Melania says:

    Very few people are interested in this marriage. This is the sad truth.

    • Betsy says:

      Me! I’ll enjoy looking at pictures, but I have such a distaste for Andrew that I don’t really care and I’m not going to get excited.

      • Lady D says:

        Not a fan of either of their parents at all, but I am rooting for the York sisters. They get way too much unwarranted grief from every direction, I’m not piling on. I also think the look on Beatrice’s face sometimes reminds me a great deal of the queen. I think Bea would make a formidable ruler.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ^This Lady D. Andrew and Fergie could disappear, which would be nice, but the York sisters always have my sympathy.

  11. Jess says:

    I get why security will be expensive, given that the Queen and the three direct future Kings will be there, and I don’t see why she can’t get a wedding like Harry’s. I mean, I know he is way more popular and well known, and he is the son of the next King and the brother of the other, but he is 6th in line right? And Eugenie is ninth? There is not an important or big difference there, and both of them are grandchildren of the Queen so…
    Or we complain about both weddings or we deal and accept both of them.
    That’s in my humble opinion, of course

    • Peg says:

      She is not a working Royal, PH is.

      • Ann says:

        I am not being critical but I actually do not understand why Prince Harry is a “working royal.” I think it is fantastic that they do so much charity work and so forth. He is sixth in line. Once William’s children grow up, he is likely going to be pushed even further down the line, so if I were him, I would seriously think about what the future holds regarding the monarchy and how long people are willing to foot the bill so to speak. That goes for Eugenie and Beatrice too. The Windsors have a lot of money. They own a lot of property. They really need to pay for a lot more themselves.

      • Nic919 says:

        Harry will be where Beatrice and Eugenie are right now, but only once George, Charlotte and Louis are adults. Andy hasn’t accepted that his kids don’t matter anymore and what hasn’t helped is the extreme longevity of the Queen. Based on past history, Charles would already be king at this point and he could openly push Andy out of the way.

    • Becks1 says:

      I was thinking similar thoughts, but the reality is that Harry IS more popular, he is closer to the throne (being 6th in line, but also in terms of the fact that his brother will be king one day – that does make him closer to Andrew than Eugenie, in some ways), and he is a full time working royal.

      And, Harry and Meghan appropriately scaled their wedding back from what Will and Kate did. I’m sure there were a variety of factors at play – Meghan’s second wedding, Harry isn’t the heir, etc – but I’m sure they could have packed Westminster Abbey very easily with guests and they made a very clear choice not to try to copy Will and Kate, which was very smart. Their wedding was still expensive and fancy, lol, but definitely scaled back some. Eugenie should take a lesson from that and scale her wedding back a bit, rather than try to copy Harry.

      Now that I’ve said THAT – I do feel bad because once she decided on Windsor, everyone was going to be talking about how she is copying Harry, and the truth is she probably just wants a really pretty wedding that, yes, is fairly fancy, and she wants to celebrate with her friends and family. So despite what I said above, part of me then thinks, you do you Eugenie, and have the wedding you want.

      Just don’t be surprised that the optics are bad and that there is some negative press.

      • PrincessK says:

        Everybody saying that Eugenie is copying Harry and Meghan should realise that Eugenie had to change the date and timing for her wedding plans for Harry’s sake, so that H&M could have a beautiful bright summer wedding with great pictures for the whole world to see.

        Eugenie had back down to give way to Harry’s seniority in the pecking order otherwise she would have had that summer wedding, instead she has to make do with October, which could be OK weather wise but it certainly is not May.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Eugenie announced her engagement in late January two months after Harry and Meghan. It would have been a big stretch for her to organize a big spring or summer wedding in that time.

      • Lizabeth says:

        Maybe @Nota. But Charles and Diana’s engagement announcement before their (larger, state) late July wedding occurred in late Feb. Will and Kate’s engagement announcement before their (larger, state) late April wedding occurred in mid-Nov. So I think Eugenie’s January announcement could have allowed time to plan a summer wedding before the royals’ “vacation” break.

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t think Eugenie is “actually” copying Harry and Meghan. I mean, its a wedding. Theres going to be some overlap. But I think she’s kind of stuck because it “looks” like she is copying them. Like others have said the choice of Windsor/St George’s makes sense for Eugenie, but its so close to harry’s wedding that it looks like she is trying to imitate it – even if that was always her #1 choice for her wedding. It’s a tough spot for her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Given that HM and PP basically disappear for July and August, and June is filled with big royal events like Ascot, Trooping, etc.? I don’t think a June, July, or August wedding for Eugenie would have been in the cards. Clear the decks to get Charles married off, sure, but not Eugenie.

      • Princessk says:

        @nota….The date that Eugenie’s engagement was made does not change the fact that she had to give Harry priority. It was a well known fact that she has been waiting to get married for a long time, once her sister’s ten year relationship sunk Eugenie was ready to go, and then Harry and Meghan came along…..

    • Clare says:

      Jess – I agree with you. I don’t see why the 6th and 9th in line should be treated differently. Personally I don’t think ANY of them should benefit from the public purse, whether they are 3,4,6,or 76th in line. As many people have said – they have their own private wealth right (which I wonder where THAT came from 🙄).

      I think it’s disgusting that Harry OR Eugenie or anyone else’s wedding costs (security or otherwise) would be met by taxpayers which teachers are buying their own supplies and people are literally dying in hospital hallways waiting for beds.

      • Julia says:

        It’s not where you are in line to the throne, it’s where you are in relation to a monarch. If you are the child of a monarch/future monarch and your brother/sister is another monarch/future monarch, you are more significant than if you are the grandchild of one.

        Harry’s kids won’t be full time Royals and should not get the big high profile weddings – same as B&E. Harry on the other hand, is a full time working Royal, same as Anne, Andrew & Edward.

    • Lauren says:

      Well, there’s a couple of reasons why Harry matters more. He’s clearly involved in many official activities, whereas Eugenie is not. The law regarding succession differentiates between 6th and 9th – only the first 6 in line have to ask permission from the sovereign to marry, mean Eugenie didn’t have to and Harry did. When Charles becomes king, Harry’s status will be elevated, whereas Eugenie’s will never be. In addition, after Charles and William, Harry is the most senior adult royal. If, god forbid, for some reason George became king while still a child, it would almost certainly fall to Harry to be regent. That’s a scenario that’s likely already been discussed behind the scenes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Eugenie isn’t counted as an official working royal, so you cannot use that against her as a reason. She does plenty of charity work on her own as does Beatrice but none is “official”.

        Legally they’re not irrelevant. Don’t forget, Beatrice and Eugenie have a legal requirement to be Counselors to the monarch. If HM dies before W&K’s elder son is 21 or Andrew dies in the next 16 years, Beatrice becomes one and is required to move back to the UK. Eugenie becomes one if both HM and Andrew pass before PGTips is 21.

        In your Regent scenario? Beatrice and Eugenie would both be required to be Counselors to Harry. Edward would also be called on and possibly Anne too.

    • hershey says:


      That idea about accepting or complaining about both in the same manner makes sense.

      Weddings are a family celebration.

      Think they should have thought the planning through better. In the states at a concert, there is often a smaller band performing prior to the main event.

      If Eugenie had gone first, it could have been smaller, with the smaller being less noticeable.

  12. Ann says:

    I can appreciate why people go gaga over the pomp and circumstance. It is neat to see.
    However in this day and age, I think that the Windsors have enough money and own enough property to contribute a lot more monetarily to these events that are for anyone who is not going to be the next monarch. I am not trying to be critical of Meghan and Harry but honestly, it seems like the weddings of Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice, should she be married in the future, could probably be more low key and paid for by the Windsors.

    • Lady D says:

      I love watching the pomp and pageantry of a royal wedding. While we are a Commonwealth country, we have no royal weddings, so I cross the pond for my fix.
      For the record, I firmly believe the RF should pay for all their own weddings, with the heir being the exception.

  13. Reese says:

    From the beginning I have said this is outrageous and have been blasted in these comments for my views on this wedding.
    The public won’t be arriving in droves to see HER, she isn’t as popular as all this and does not deserve this type and scale of wedding based on being a non working royal blood princess. The entitlement and expenses that are not being covered by the BRF are not consistent with somebody who does nothing for the brand.
    What is there to look forward too besides who looks smashing and who doesn’t?

  14. AmyLue says:

    I think see a couple of issues at play here:
    1) The timing of this affair is poor. Kaiser, I agree with your point about the interest in the royals and weddings – the problem is that we just had a HUGE royal wedding. If their wedding was last October, before H&M’s engagement was even announced, I think people might have been more receptive. We were in a bit of a wedding drought and all wanted something lovely to get behind. Unfortunately, she is getting married a few months after a much grander wedding so it feels redundant. (I am not saying she is redundant. I am just saying that is how this feels.)
    2) Andrew has not played the long game with his girls and it has not done them any favors. Anne has with her children. They have many privileges but little if the flack.

    • L84Tea says:

      Just curious, what do you mean as far as your #2 reference. Are you talking about trust funds?

      • Becks1 says:

        I think she means that Anne saw the writing on the wall and raised her children accordingly. They were never going to be working royals and while they were clearly raised with privilege and a certain level of fame, there was never any expectation that they would be full time royals and so they seem to be fairly well adjusted adults, albeit ones with a very famous family and lots of money.

        Andrew always thought that his daughters should be full time royals (and I guess maybe when they were born that wasn’t such a crazy thought?) but now his daughters are in this weird position where they aren’t private and aren’t public, and there is a sense that they want to be MORE public and get more of the privileges of the royal family (although I think they have plenty of privileges but what do I know.)

      • L84Tea says:

        Makes sense, Becks1. I definitely sense the York sisters want to be more public, Bea especially. Hate to say it, but Bea comes off rather thirsty to me.

      • A says:

        @Becks1 I feel as though Andrew and Fergie’s desire for fame and notoriety kind of screwed their kids over big time. I don’t deny that Beatrice and Eugenie are nice enough people, but I feel that they are constantly having to emotionally “manage” their parents if you know what I mean. Especially their expectations when it comes to stuff like this.

      • AmyLue says:

        @L84Tea – I think Becks1 said it well. I think Anne saw the writing on the wall with her children or understood the temperament of her brother or… I understand that the patriarchy gives her children a slightly different place than Andrew and Edward’s children but Edward seems to be raising his children different than Andrew and Ed’s children are much younger. I think Anne’s children get away with more because they choose the fly below the radar. I think the memory and blow back from Peter and the Jubilee scheme was far less than the blowback B & E receive for similar or smaller infractions. I think that Z & P live off of royal perks but they just fly below the radar.

        Additionally, Z’s wedding was close in timeline to W&K but it seemed low key and therefore I do not remember people being upset. Perception is everything with this family. If E wanted a big fancy wedding (or her dad wanted it for her) they should have timed it differently. She should have gotten married last year or she should have waited another 12 – 18 months. Is this fair? Probably not? Is she a lovely person? Probably. Is perception everything for this family? Yes, perception is everything and it that is part of the problem, IMO

    • SlightlyAnonny says:

      I think #2 led to #1. A royal wedding, slightly smaller than Harry’s would be great…next year. But less than six months later for a royal who is not as popular or as important (in terms of royal work) is overkill. If the intention was to shine and not coast in the shadow (a la the Tindall wedding) the timing sucks.

      • Lizabeth says:

        The timing may be bad. But it is possible the wedding date was already delayed because of Harry’s coming-a-bit-out-of- nowhere engagement and wedding. Why should Eugenie have to wait until next year?

      • AmyLue says:

        @Lizabeth – I agree that the timing of a wedding or engagement might have been delayed for E due to H&M. That said, she should still understand the optics of her decisions and how they will be perceived. I am not saying the optics are fair. I am also not saying that E SHOULD HAVE to wait. I am only saying, that optics and timing are everything for her as a minor royal and that, IMO, is a large part of her problem.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Zara and Mike married three weeks after W&K. 6000 members of the public showed up to their wedding. If there hadn’t been security arrangements, you know the Windsors would have been blamed.

        Was it a smaller wedding? Yes. Did she and Mike kick another bride and groom out of their long-chosen wedding date and venue to get the day they wanted? Yes. Where’s the outrage for that?

        Eugenie is the first born princess to marry since Princess Anne. That matters to some people. If they want to show up and cheer? So be it, their choice.

      • Lizabeth says:

        @Amylue…Supposedly *one* reason for Harry’s engagement/wedding being a bit rushed was to ensure his elderly grandparents were able to attend the ceremony. Eugenie probably feels the same way. All indications are she is quite close to them (despite the reported friction between PP and Fergie.) So waiting a year would seem terribly unfair. I do understand what you are saying but I do not think she should be expected to wait simply because Harry managed to beat her to the altar. Her engagement has already been long by royal standards. Further, while Harry was baptised at Windsor, the Yorks lived in that area for years. As others have said, Eugenie likely considers that to be her home church. So, it’s possible she always hoped to be married there–and if not always, it’s likely the idea was in her mind long before Harry even met Meghan. (Eugenie was baptised at St. Mary Magdalene’s on Sandrigham. That’s such a tiny church it’s not suitable for even a “scaled back” royal wedding.)

      • notasugarhere says:

        wait sorry, three months not weeks

      • AmyLue says:


        Everything you say is perfectly reasoned. Personally, I have no opinion about where E is married. My point was simply that she should have expected the criticism she is receiving because of the perception. Unfortunately, it does not *appear* her parents have done the best job with the perception game and the decisions she is making regarding her wedding and timing are not helping her perception.

        Conversely, I think this decision will add fuel to Charles’s streamlined monarchy plan.

        All of that said, I am not asserting any personal feelings I have about E’s wedding and what she should or should not do. Just observations about her predicament and public perception.

      • Tina says:

        @nota, both Zara and Mike are sporting stars in this country. There was more interest in their wedding than any other minor royals’ purely because of that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Possibly, but many in that crowd were there to see the Queen’s granddaughter get married. 6000 wouldn’t have shown up if Tindall was marrying an unknown.

        We won’t know the public interest, or lack of it, until the event happens.

        I think if Eugenie and Jack were aiming/planning for a bigger event, they wouldn’t have chosen to get married on a Friday.

      • Tina says:

        6000 people didn’t show up for Peter and Autumn. Zara and Mike are liked by many people here who don’t give a toss about the royals. And the day of the week doesn’t matter – the security costs are fixed no matter what day it is. The carriage ride and the number of senior royals are what dictate that.

      • Natalie S says:

        I didn’t know Zara and Mike made someone else move their wedding date. They should have been called out for that. I hope that couple was given something in return for being made to move their date.

    • Nic919 says:

      Both Andrew and Fergie have had delusions about their importance. I think many forget that Fergie tried to sell access to the royal family and it’s one of the reasons that Phillip hates her to this day. And Andrew is lucky he isn’t in jail but is too arrogant to be low key on this issue. If I was the UK media I would bring up again all the Epstein connections. It’s way more serious than whatever nonsense Tom Markle could ever say.

      Someone mentioned here a few months ago that they went to university at the same time as Beatrice and that she was very out of touch with what normal people do, with things like parking in faculty parking lots etc. Eugenie may only be a bit more grounded and it wouldn’t be coming from either parent. The smartest thing to avoid a comparison would have been to pick a different venue. So whoever if behind picking the same venue as Harry’s wedding and then copying ideas like tickets for a crowd if the one who doesn’t understand this wedding isn’t as important.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Beatrice and Eugenie grew up at Royal Lodge Windsor. Why is she supposed to pick a different church?

        The bride and groom and well-connected people with a lot of friends and business associates. That means big wedding.

        The ticketing for the crowd at Windsor started with Edward and Sophie, not Harry and Meghan.

      • Nic919 says:

        There was almost two decades between Edward and Sophie’s wedding and Harry and Meghan, so even if similar things were done the comparison isn’t as obvious. Eugenie can get married where she wants, but since this was all done in May, it makes the comparisons inevitable.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Just pointing out they didn’t invent the ticket idea, just as I pointed out Harry and Meghan didn’t invent it when people were bashing them for it.

    • shy vi says:

      Excellent post….100% right on all points in my opinion.

  15. Beth says:

    I have no interest in her wedding, and I doubt I’m the only one who isn’t interested and won’t be watching.
    Ugh! Those horrendous sunglasses make her look like a robot. Shame on the person who designed them

  16. Becks1 says:

    This is a weird story for me because I don’t know who to be annoyed at, lol. Is Eugenie pushing for things like the carriage ride through Windsor? (Which seems a bit….unnecessary.) Or is the queen like, let’s do that again, shall we? Or is Andrew pushing for Eugenie to have everything equal to what Harry had?

    To a large extent some things like security were just going to be high. You’re going to have the queen, the Prince of Wales, William and George in the same building. I cant imagine a scenario where there’s NOT going to a ton of security in that situation.

    but maybe things like the 1200 onlookers being invited or the carriage ride etc could have been skipped and that may have helped with costs. I dunno.

    • Ardnamurchan says:

      Must they be high, though?
      St George’s is inside the wallls of Windsor Castle, which is the Queen’s main residence and heavily guarded always. If they hadn’t decided to ticket 1200 public onlookers to stand inside the lower ward, would any extra security be needed at all?

      • Becks1 says:

        I don’t know – maybe not? I don’t know what difference having the onlookers will make to the overall costs – I’m sure it will add to it, but does that decision (to invite those 1200 people) result in the sky high security costs? (since that’s one of the things being complained about.) I’m sure, even with as well guarded as Windsor is, the wedding would bring extra security costs, but I don’t know how it would all break down.

      • Nic919 says:

        That’s a good question. There was probably always going to be some security but the crowd poses an extra risk. And the carriage ride as well.

    • Masamf says:

      @Becks1, when Harry and Meghan announced the carriage ride, there were rumours on the internet that Meghan had not wanted the carriage ride and that Harry was like whatever she wants is what goes, but that PoW pleaded with Meghan to let the carriage ride happen for his son. Not sure how far the rumors are true tho.

  17. minx says:

    They really should dial it back.

  18. Maria says:

    Peter Phillips and Autumn got married at St George’s as well. So did Helen Windsor. Is the cost due to the heightened security because of the 1200 ticket holders? Sorry a bit confused. And both Peter and Zara live rent free on the Gatcombe estate which I believe was given to Princess Anne upon her first marriage.

    • Mego says:

      Good question though – what exactly is driving up the cost of this wedding compared to others of a similar scale? The carriage ride? Presence of senior royals?, location? Be good to have that information before making a judgement.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Didn’t it come out that for Harry and Meg’s wedding, the big security costs came from having to have extra protection presence/snipers etc. being in place WITHIN the castle due to the public being inside the gates, as well as all the protection along the carriage route (on the ground, as well as police snipers on rooftops looking out). That escalates costs tremendously.

      • PrincessK says:

        Do remember that the security costs for H&Ms wedding was greatly exaggerated and the figure was much lower in the end. Don’t believe everything you read, the cost of Eugenie’s wedding is headline news because people like gossip and sensation.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes, Gatcombe was given to Anne at marriage. Purchased with private funds but fixed up with the modern equivalent of 5-10 million in taxpayer funds. Entire 1000+ acre estate secured with taxpayer money because Anne is a working royal. Peter and Zara and their families live there free and benefit from the taxpayer security.

  19. perplexed says:

    Maybe they can sell the rights to ABC and pay for it that way…

  20. Jen says:

    She’s 9th in line, which means there is practically no chance of her being the monarch. Much like 6th in line who got married at much more expense earlier this year.

    She’s a princess. If people want the royal family, part of that includes these costs for having a royal family. It’s not her wedding that’s being paid for- it’s security surrounding the wedding. Anytime you have that many top royals together, there will be security costs.

    • Reese says:

      You seem to forget the very important part that she is not a working royal.
      She is getting all the benefits of a working royal but the taxpayers don’t get any benefits from her.
      PH, aside from being a full time working royal, is also the son to the heir of the throne. There are big differences between the two.

      • aaa says:

        Eugenie grew up in Windsor and is getting married at her local church.

        The trappings of her wedding are the same trappings that non-heirs who are closely related to the monarch have gotten, whether they are working royals or non-working royals.

        Eugenie’s “crime” seems to one of scheduling, her wedding is coming a few months after Harry’s wedding and superficially it looks like she is replicating Harry’s wedding but she isn’t, she is having the typical St. George’s Chapel at Windsor wedding that relatives of the monarch who do not get the big London weddings have.

      • Reese says:

        Her crime is not the comparison of her wedding or the timing. It could be in two years and the response to her would cause just as much outrage.
        She does not contribute to the taxpayers as a working royal. She is a blood princess who doesn’t need to have over 1000 fans watch her leave a church and a carriage ride. The taxpayers are being forced to cover the costs of this weddings extravagance. Footing a security bill which is being created by all these extras. It can absolutely be scaled back to represent who she actually is and what she means the BRF brand.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Reese, if no one shows up, no one shows up. But there are millions of people who support the royals and want to be there as part of this event. They want to see a big parade so that’s what is on offer. If no one shows? When/if Beatrice marries we’ll see a different plan and scale of wedding.

      • Suki says:

        Harry is 6th in line to the throne. Eugenie is 9th?? Not much difference. If Harry gets the big wedding, courtesy of the taxpayers, where is the line drawn? At the women?

      • Tina says:

        @Suki, it’s all relative. Charles, as the heir to the throne, had the huge St Paul’s wedding in 1981, and then Andrew got married in Westminster Abbey 5 years later. Edward, as the fourth child, married at Windsor Castle, which was considered much more low key. William could have chosen St Paul’s, but he was still not the heir and he probably thought it unlucky, given his parents’ marriage, so he chose Westminster Abbey, which was about as low key as he could go. Harry could have had the Abbey had he wished it, but he sensibly chose Windsor. It’s all about what is most appropriate at the time, and Eugenie really should have gone with somewhere in Scotland. If only because most of the media (and, to be honest, most security threats) won’t travel that far.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Eugenie and Jack are based in London, their jobs are in London, their friends are in that part of England. Why on earth would they be required to marry in a small church in Scotland instead of in the church on the estate where she was raised?

        Lady Helen Windsor, Peter and Autumn, Edward and Sophie. They were all married at Windsor because that’s where the Windsors have the “smaller” weddings.

      • Tina says:

        Zara and Mike spend most of their time in the Home Counties, they have no ties to Scotland. A Scottish wedding is always an option for posh people. Or if she was determined to have it at Windsor, have it completely private, no appearance to the public, no carriage ride. That would cut security costs right down.

    • sushi says:

      Harry will be 6th for a long long time until the Cambridges kids get married and birthed. 9th will be pushed downed to 10, 11, etc when Harry have children. Besides, Harry is the son of the future king. Meghan haters complain about the cost of HM weddings before and now another chance to knock HM yet again even though it is his cousin wedding.

    • CairinaCat says:

      She is way down the list compared to Harry
      He is only one tragic helicopter ride, with Charles and William aboard, to being Regent.

      • notasugarhere says:

        This is why HM had the rule that heir and heir’s heir are not allowed to travel together. Charles and Diana had to request special permission for their Australia tour. W&K however do this all the time with all of their kids on the same plane.

  21. A says:

    I don’t like Andrew and I think Eugenie should have a low key wedding. That being said, I feel as though this is just a new round of ‘hate the Yorks’ from the press, just as it has been in the years before. The article is not clear on what element of the wedding requires that level of security, and that is by design. They are trying to stoke a disproportionate level of outrage on very few facts. There is plenty to criticize the Yorks for, but unless there is more info, I dont think this is one of them just yet.

    • A says:

      Also it irks me immensely that Eugenie and Jack live in Kensington Palace. What in the world for? If Eugenie has no plans to work for the RF in the future, and Jack certainly does not, why in the world do they get what I can only assume is some type of housing subsidized by the tax payers and the state? Sure they pay rent, but if I can also pay that rent, would I be allowed to live there? Probably not, right? But why not?

      • Jen says:

        The Kents are QE’s cousins, and live at KP. Eugenie is William’s cousin, so I’m not sure it’s so out of line with how the palace is already being used, as far as housing for extended members of the family.

      • Algernon says:

        Doesn’t St. James’s Palace rent a few apartments to the public? There aren’t many royals there anymore (I think just Princesses Anne and Alexandra). Kensington could do the same except it seems like they’re concentrating the lower branches of the BRF tree there. Though I won’t be surprised if once Charles is in charge he overhauls the KP residency program as part of his streamlining.

      • A says:

        @Jen, the Kent’s are QE’s cousin, yes, but only the Duke and Duchess of Kent are working royals who live in KP. Prince and Princess Michael are hangers on at best who do maybe 3 engagements a year and spend the rest of their time sniffing at others from their high horse. What, pray tell, is the need for them to continue to live at KP at the tax payers’ expense? They didn’t pay rent for the better portion of their stay either. Eugenie falls into the same category as them. Unless she has plans to become a much bigger fixture in the royal family going forward, equivalent to at least the Duke and Duchess of Kent/Gloucester, she shouldn’t be staying in a residence subsidized by tax payers. Period.

        @Algernon, this is exactly why I don’t mind the “streamlining” from Charles. People make a big deal about how there won’t be “enough hands” to do the work in the RF if he kicks out all of William and Harry’s first cousins, while forgetting the fact that 1) a number of the Queen’s first cousins don’t actually work for the RF either, and 2) it was never intended that all of them would. The current Duke of Gloucester was planning on becoming an architect. His older brother was supposed to carry out the official royal duties, but he died young. Princess Margaret’s children don’t work, they never intended to. Prince Edward’s children will likely not do any official duties either, which is why they decided not to style them as Prince & Princess, but as the son and daughter of an Earl (this is why Lady Louise is Lady and not Princess). There is a lot of bloat in the RF from the previous generations being heavy handed with the favours, and trimming a lot of that fat is necessary, frankly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, A, if you apply, you are no security risk, and you can afford the rent you have the possibility of renting at Kensington or SJP.

        Princess Anne is at SLP, Alexandra iirc has a space too for when she’s in London for engagements. Anne’s kids and their families stay in Anne’s SJP space whenever they’re in London, but since it is done quietly few know enough to protest. Beatrice and Eugenie did have an apartment at SJP. Eugenie and Jack are moving to Ivy Cottage, Beatrice is in London, and they’ve given up that SJP apartment. Rent was paid by Andrew with private funds, so we’re told.

        There are members of the staff and the public who also rent spaces at Kensington and SJP. They pay market rent, as we’re told Eugenie and Jack are going to do.

        The Gloucesters and Duke of Kent live there free in exchange for doing royal duties. As Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not official working royals, the taxpayers don’t pay their rent. They’re finally now paying what they should be. HM also hid one of her Bowes-Lyon cousins in a space in KP for years, like she let Margaret Rhodes live at Garden House Windsor free for years.

        The Duke and Duchess of Kent lived at Anmer Hall on Sandringham for free for 20 years. Now the Duchess of Kent doesn’t live with her husband at Wren House at KP, she hasn’t for almost two decades. She lived quietly elsewhere working as a music teacher.

      • Algernon says:

        @notasugarhere TBH I am most interested in the “lesser royals” because they always seem to be up to something, like the Earl of Snowdon’s furniture business is interesting to me (and he designed that beautiful wood tiara for his wife). I also feel like they have far more interesting gossip, I am much more interested in shady Andy than I am Prince Charles.

      • A says:

        @NOTA, going off just your assessment, I would honestly say that Anne’s children shouldn’t be using her space at SJP. That’s easier said than done, but I feel that Anne has been smart in managing her family’s public image. She’s cultivated an outward image of thrift, which Andy and Fergie have not, and her children are reaping the benefits of that, even as they continue to benefit from their royal connections and perks quietly on the side.

        Prince and Princess Michael of Kent should have never been given space at KP to begin with. The fact that the Queen hid away one of her Bowes-Lyon cousins is also wrong. And thank you for bringing up Margaret Rhodes, which is another example of the sort of thing I’m talking about.

        I don’t know what Charles plans to do wrt the streamlining, but whatever it is, it won’t be done without a fair bit of kicking and screaming on the parts of a lot of the people in his family. There are going to be those who will not be happy about giving up their privileges, that’s for sure.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Most will age-out of KP and SJP (Gloucesters, Kent, P&P Kent, Princess Alexandra). There’s only so much kicking and screaming Charles himself can do about the younger ones. Once Anne is gone, there will be no taxpayer security for that estate. It doesn’t change the fact that Peter and Zara will inherit an estate that is worth millions more than before – because of taxpayer-funded upgrades.

        If Eugenie is paying market rent at Ivy Cottage and is a good renter, she cannot be evicted. Once Harry and Meghan move to larger quarters which I expect? Nott Cott or Duke of Kent’s place (next to Eugenie) will likely end up being leased to Beatrice. After Kent passes away of course! If HM is alive then, she’ll arrange it. After that? If they pay market rent and are good tenants for the company that controls KP leasing, Charles cannot kick them out.

        Andrew has a pre-paid 75 year lease on Royal Lodge Windsor, a lease Beatrice and Eugenie inherit upon his death. No one can legally boot the Yorks out of Royal Lodge as their shared country home until 2078.

      • hershey says:

        The Yorks fairly and rightly lost the 24/7 protection officers a few years ago because her risk rating fell to a level that indicated she did not need it.

        Having her pay rent for housing on Kensington grounds will help keep her rating down. The grounds are already protected and lower the number of hours she is fully outside a royal security bubble.

        The decision to house Zara and Peter on their mothers estate keeps them in a similar bubble.

        Protection is not determined by rank or hrh, it is not provided as a mark of status. It is regularly assessed and provided if rating is high enough.

        If Eugenie needed protection in future and was not on royal grounds cost to protect her is much higher.

  22. gingersnaps says:

    LOL These MP’s should also look into scaling down their expenses instead of asking for more because of the ‘increased workload’ that Brexit brings. A lot of councils are notorious for mismanaging public funds and then they blame the current government for the predicament that they find themselves into. All should be doing their part to better manage the public purse but no most of the people with positions in government treat it like it’s a gravy train.

  23. StoryMummy says:

    I’ll be frank, when people think of a Princess marrying or a royal wedding, they not only want the glitz, they want to see an attractive couple. Harry and Meghan are an attractive couple, Harry being the son of a future King. So the public and re businesses get their money’s worth. Eugenie and Jack, Eugenie especially, are not. And she’s a minor royal on top of that. So if she wants a princess wedding, then she can get her dad and grandma to pay for all of it themselves, as splashing out on her wedding will not make people think that they got their money’s worth by gawking at attractive people who happen to be future monarchs or close in line to the throne.

  24. Lizabeth says:

    The Yorks spent alot of time in the Windsor area so Eugenie’s desire to be married in the chapel isn’t odd to me at all. I don’t think she’s doing it to copy Harry. The rest of the stuff including the carriage ride, I don’t have much of an opinion about. I don’t know how much cheaper it would be without the invited observers and the ride. There would still be people who would want to gather in the area and there still would need to be tight security given the royal attendees. And it’s not as though Harry and Meghan or Will and Kate were the first to do some of those things. So I’m not at all sure she’s copying any of what Charles’s kids did or rather, she’s not doing it because they did.

    I do feel like Anne’s kids are getting a bit too much of a pass here though. Peter has cashed in lots of times including selling his wedding stuff to Hello mag. And those dreadful baskets for the Queen’s 90th! I suspect the costs to the public of both of their weddings was higher than reported too. And Anne’s non-working royal kids have free housing so they are leeches too, just in a different, perhaps less visible way. The family—all of them–are masters at keeping their own wallets sealed while passing on costs to the British public it seems to me. Finally, was it really known from their birth the Yorks wouldn’t be working royals? I know Margaret’s kids weren’t but TQ also drafted cousins to do alot of work during her reign. It seems the streamlined monarchy has become a talking point fairly recently.

    • Maria says:

      Yes to all of this! @Lizabeth.
      Zara didn’t wait until the following year to marry Mike, they were married 3 months after William and Kate. I don’t think Eugenie should be expected to wait a year after Harry and Meghan’s wedding. It’s her wedding and she should get married when she wants.

      • Jan90067 says:

        She could’ve married the next day. But she shouldn’t expect taxpayers to pay for any of the “extra” parts. If it was just a family wedding, w/in the gates of Windsor, no one would say boo to security for TBRF. BUT, she wants the public to make a fuss and ooh and ahh her, and then that carriage ride, which is ridiculous, considering her status. And before you bring up Edward and Sophie doing it, Edward is the son of a *reigning* monarch.

      • notasugarhere says:


      • Suki says:

        But Jan, why is it ok, defended even, for Harry to spend a lot more of taxpayer money, when he is also never going to be King as 6th in line?

      • Tina says:

        Harry is the child of the next monarch. Every child he has will push Eugenie further down the line.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Then why was it okay for Lady Helen Windsor and Peter Philips to have their weddings at Windsor but not Eugenie?

      • Jan90067 says:

        Suki, he is the son of the heir apparent. A MUCH different place than being the daughter of a second son of the Monarch.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      Great post, Lisabeth. I get so tired of the York bashing. Holding Anne’s kids up as some shining example is disingenuous, especially when people conveniently forget they live for free on their mother’s estate and Hello! had access to their weddings. Anne didn’t just refuse a title for her kids. Mark Phillips refused a title, which excluded their children from any royal title. Eugenie and Beatrice are easy targets for those who hate their parents. These young women have done nothing to warrant the level of hate thrown their way.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the fact that Peter and Zara get such a pass shows exactly how well they have played this game. They aren’t perfect and they certainly “profit” from their royal family and their general wealthy connections. But they are perceived very differently from B&E. Is it because Zara is an equestrian (which is clearly not a cheap sport, but it means that when people see her working she is usually sweaty, in riding clothes, etc, so its perceived as differently from working at an art gallery), etc?

      or is it because Anne doesn’t make public waves about wanting them to be “working royals” and they just quietly live their pampered and privileged lives? (relatively quietly, at any rate.) They’re not perfect and I don’t think B&E are any worse than Zara and Peter – I think its more a matter of how their royal parents have navigated this.

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree. Andy has not run this like Anne has and his kids have become a target as a result. The Fergie situation doesn’t help either. The BRF all waste a lot of money and arguing that some “work” for it is only a matter of small degrees.

      • Lizabeth says:

        You all could be right about Anne’s approach. My point was just that earlier posts seemed to be holding her children up as perfect models of non-working royals who don’t game the system. That’s hardly true. Besides not pushing for her children to have public roles (although I’ll always wonder about Peter and the 90th birthday debacle), every year (including 2017) Anne does more royal work events than 30-something Will, Kate, and Harry put together even though she’s more than 40 years older. How tricky on her part!

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t think it was known when Beatrice and Eugenie were growing up. Including the two of them as working royals, not their spouses but them, was a logical move at the time. They will be Counsellors at some point in their lives, so they aren’t completely irrelevant.

      I think the decision was made while they were late teens, but if Andrew and Sarah didn’t like the answer who knows what B&E were told? That’s why we’ve seen more floundering from the York sisters and them taking longer to find their feet.

      • Lizabeth says:

        Thanks @Nota. That’s what I thought. The “floundering” of the York sisters people mention makes more sense in that context.

    • Tina says:

      Anne herself works harder than any of them, except Charles in some years. Zara has a very good career of her own, at which she works hard and has won Olympic medals (including gold) for this country. That’s something that you can’t buy, no matter how privileged you are (see Albert of Monaco’s Olympic career). Peter is a bit of a dim bulb, but he gives the appearance of gainful employment most of the time. Like it or not, Beatrice and Eugenie don’t do enough work of their own to compare.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne does more engagements some years, but not more work overall than Charles. She goes home and works on her own estate. Charles also has stewardship of Duchy of Cornwall which he’s completely turned around.

        Zara’s career would not have been possible without her mother’s estate, fixed up and secured by taxpayer money. Nor without the access to the finest of horse breeding lines via her grandmother the Queen.

        Both Beatrice and Eugenie have jobs, have for years now. And they do charity work, which neither Peter nor Zara do.

      • Tina says:

        Anne does more engagements than Charles most years, and the two of them are miles ahead of everyone else. Zara’s career was certainly helped by her mother and grandmother, but that’s not unknown in that sport (see Jessica Springsteen) and no amount of help can buy you an Olympic gold medal if you don’t have the talent. Eugenie has had a job for most of the time since leaving university, but the same cannot be said for Beatrice. And Zara, in particular, does plenty of charity work (Sport Relief, Cancer Research, Sargent Cancer Care, Lucy Air Ambulance etc).

      • notasugarhere says:

        Zara’s charity work is related to her taking a fee to show up, including supporting women in racing events in Australia.

        Zara is talented, but the selection of Olympic riders is that – a selection. It isn’t a strict numbers game. Zara being selected for the Olympics in London was directly related to her Granny and PR.

        Anne does engagements, goes home, and works on her estate. Charles does the same number of engagements, plus turned around the Duchy, Dumfries House, The Prince’s Trust, and does all the land management for the family’s private lands. Overall, he puts in far more work than Anne.

      • Tina says:

        Zara would have been selected for the 2004 and 2008 Olympics had her horse not been injured. She doesn’t just win team events – she won an individual eventing world championship gold medal in 2006 and an individual eventing European championship gold medal in 2005. She’s the real deal, it’s not because of her family. And not all of her charity work is related to fees – she’s a Patron of Cancer Research UK (as well as other charities) and I guarantee you they don’t pay her for that.
        And the whole point about Anne is that she works a lot harder than anyone in the royal family except arguably Charles. Including, and especially, Andrew.

  25. Murphy says:

    I’m not convinced that he won’t get/accept a minor title. I’m sure Andy has been campaigning over the top for that one.

  26. Mrs. Peel says:

    Eugenie and Beatrice need to stay in their lane – no one cares about them or their parents.

    • notasugarhere says:

      We’ll find out in October, no? Maybe no one will apply for tickets. Or there will be plenty who do and crowds lining the streets.

      While many may hate their parents? Others remember the two little princesses fondly, and those people are the kind who show up, wave bunting, and cheer. And vote to keep the UK a monarchy.

      • Tina says:

        Just to point out, none of us vote to keep the UK a monarchy or to get rid of it. It has never been a major part of either party’s manifesto (I’m sure it’s in the fine print in Labour’s somewhere, but it’s never mentioned whilst campaigning – even under Comrade Corbyn).

      • notasugarhere says:

        And don’t rally and work hard to call for a vote. The status quo is generally accepted, some fussing is made, and still the royals get away with their 600 million a year in costs, their freedom from information requests about money, etc.

        As long as more people support the monarchy that don’t, it stays. That means paying for security for these family weddings in castle churches.

      • Tina says:

        Sure, people are generally apathetic enough not to care about the monarchy. That does not mean that we support millions in security costs for very minor royals.

      • hershey says:

        To those who wish for a change to government in the UK.

        In the UK, when enough support for a position can be demonstrated, a referendum can be called for and parliament can decide to hold one.

        If the support for the royal family is strong, keeping them is a choice the public has made. If not, change is something possible through parliament.

      • Tina says:

        More people voted for Hillary than Trump in the last US presidential election. Does the fact that Trump won mean that other people do not get to complain? I’m a UK citizen and taxpayer, and I get to complain about the royals, whether they’re going to be chucked out or not.

  27. Lila says:

    I am curious. Do working Royals get more of a monthly allowance than non working Royals? Does anybody know?

    • Josie says:

      The Queen makes provision out of her allocated funds for working members of the Firm (which right now includes the Kents, the Gloucesters, and Princess Alexandra). It used to come direct from Parliament (the Civil List) but that changed in the 1990s. There’s an argument actually that the financial changes made then actually served to enrich the Crown at the expense of the people, but that’s a complicated debate.

      • Tina says:

        Oh, it’s not complicated. The Queen and the people she supports are absolutely being enriched at the expense of the people. The Sovereign Grant (which replaced the Civil List) was originally set up as 15% of the income from the Crown Estates, which was more than generous. Now it’s been increased to 25% (ostensibly to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace, which the Queen should have been paying for all along) which was rubber-stamped by Parliament last year.

      • Guest says:

        How come no one asks the Queen where she spent the public money which was allocated to BP for repairs? So she gets to stash millions away and nobody says boo?

      • Tina says:

        @Guest, correct. Parliament deliberated the increase from 15% to 25% for a grand total of 45 minutes. There is no appetite for discussion at the moment. And it’s not that the money was specifically allocated to Buckingham Palace repairs, but the Queen was expected, as part of the Civil List and Sovereign Grant money, to keep Buckingham Palace in good repair. She didn’t.

  28. Josie says:

    I’m sure Brooksbank is not getting a title. He doesn’t need one, and Anne set a bit of a new precedent in not having her husband take one. (That having been said, Charlotte could reverse the precedent someday — but Eugenie doesn’t have that kind of standing).

    The York sisters are in an odd position. Their father has brought them up to value their status as blood princesses. Anne’s kids should have had similar status, but sexism stopped that, so they get all the perks and few of the problems. Edward’s kids are actually a blood princess and a blood prince, too — they could just as easily be styled HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. They were born in the aftermath of 1997, though, and so their parents declined the honorifics.

    To be very clear, the LAW hasn’t changed. As grandchildren of a monarch through a male descendant, the Wessex kids ARE Royal Highnesses — just as Camilla really IS the Princess of Wales. The Firm made a political decision not to use those titles, not a legal one.

    But what that means in practice is that the York decision to hold onto the HRHs looks less like law and tradition than stubborn grasping for unearned status. There’s a persistent rumor that Andrew was asked to stop using the HRHs for his girls in 1999 (when the Wessex marriage led to an announcement about new protocol for their future kids) and he declined. Because Andrew takes after his aunt Margaret and really super cares about that stuff.

    I used to have the impression that the girls weren’t invested the way their parents are. Their recent magazine interview made me wonder a bit, but I still think most of this insistence on the Rights Of Princesses comes from Andrew and no one else.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Why should they surrender titles that are legally theirs? Alexandra is still HRH Princess Alexandra Mrs. Ogilvy, where’s the outrage for that?

      The Windsors need to figure out a system and stick with it, but changing things once titles are several decades old doesn’t make sense.

      They need to decide a system for Edward and Sophie’s grandkids, and for any children Beatrice or Eugenie might have. Decide it now and announce it, so there is no confusion.

      • Josie says:

        To be clear, I didn’t think they should give up their titles (or keep them, for that matter) — but the decisions the Wessexes made created some unique pressures on the Yorks that past generations did not face. It created the impression that Andrew was a holdout within his family, not just for the money and property and status (Anne is hardly a commoner in her tastes or attitudes, and she was the one pushing for explicit rules exempting her from curtsying to Camilla, after all) but for the fancy HRH titles.

        By law, they are HRH — but Edward’s choices on behalf of his kids made the law seem less important than in the past. It’s a PR headache if nothing else.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Or it verified the sexist idea that titles do not pass through the female line. And it created the impression that Edward, who was not supposed to be a working royal, was taking a lower title so that one day he could be given his fathers Ducal title. Because he and Sophie weren’t supposed to be working royals, while Andrew and Sarah were.

        The Yorks were born as princesses and with the expectation they would be working royals. Things changed in the last 10 years, but that is too late in the game to start calling them out and demanding removal of their rightful titles.

      • Josie says:

        We can argue about what the Yorks should or shouldn’t do but I think we both have to agree that, for many reasons, they are targets in the press. Right or wrong, the whole blood princess thing is part of that.

        Edward and Sophie didn’t just decline a Dukedom until the DoE dies — they rejected the HRHs for their kids. That wasn’t just about their expectations for work, it was a direct outcome of the post-1997 “modernizing” movement. I confess, I expected the modernizing moment to pass and for Louise and James to have taken back their HRHs by now. They’re 100% entitled to them, after all.

        There’s nothing to settle about titles for Louise’s children, the grandchildren of a royal duke in the female line take titles from their fathers. If Edward is made Duke of Edinburgh, the title will continue to James — unless the case before the European Court wins through, and Louise becomes the heir after all. If the law changed, Beatrice could inherit the York Dukedom, but unless that happens, their kids only have titles if their fathers do. That’s not new and doesn’t require action.

        Princess Alexandra is from a generation where all the royal cousins in the male line are HRH. Beatrice and Eugenie are out there alone thanks to the Wessexes. (Shrug)

      • Josie says:

        And to repeat: I don’t see why Eugenie or Beatrice SHOULD give up the HRH. I’ve only written that the Firm was rumored to propose it, that people believe that Andrew rejected any “reduction” in his daughters’ status, that these stories were widely reported in the press, and that this is one more cudgel used to beat up the Yorks.

        I firmly believe the press were coming for Eugenie no matter what she did. The 1200 tickets for guests — something that Peter and Autumn did not do, even though interest in their wedding was very high — gave the press a hook. They would have found another, no doubt.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What happens with Louise and James when/if Edward gets the Duke of Edinburgh title is in question. Might remain as they are, might take on the HRH’s they have by right. There was never any question that Edward’s kids would be working royals however.

        The Duke of Edinburgh title is an odd one though, created not inherited. We don’t know if James can inherit it, or if they’ll have to wait and see if whomever is monarch then decides to recreate it for James.

        It is too late to change the situation with the Yorks. They’ll stay HRH for life because of decisions HM made at their birth.

        I saw little public interest in Peter’s wedding. Maybe a little more interest than usual from Canada due to Autumn, but otherwise not much. But the first princess since Anne to get married is drumming up interest. If they’d wanted it to be bigger, they’d have picked Saturday not Friday. In a way, a Friday event with ticketing is a compromise position. As a result of the success of Harry and Meghan’s wedding or Andrew/Fergie overriding Eugenie we don’t know.

      • Tina says:

        All royal dukedoms are created. Edinburgh has been created three times since 1726. It’s no different to York, Gloucester, Kent etc. If Edward is given it, James will be able to inherit it. Gloucester and Kent will soon become non-royal dukedoms because they are too far removed from the Sovereign, but they are not different to Edinburgh and York in substance. The only royal dukedoms that are different are Cornwall and Lancaster, because they are tied to the heir and the monarch, respectively.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As you point out yourself, if Edward is “given it”. It is a weird one and whether or not it ends up with that line depends on Charles feeling like it.

      • Tina says:

        All vacant royal dukedoms (except Cornwall and Lancaster) are in the gift of the Sovereign. The Queen could award Clarence, for example, to George tomorrow if she wanted to.

    • Jen says:

      While it’s true that Andrew seems to really care about titles, don’t practically all of them? This is a family that has official documents stating who curtsies to whom when.

      A very outdated system.

      • A says:

        @Jen, you’re exactly right. Outwardly, they can never say as much, but this stuff matters very deeply to all of them. It’s why it endures. All of the royals and aristocrats would tell you that titles are unimportant, and yet none of them seem keen to give those titles and privileges up do they? It’s just that it’s considered tacky to talk about it openly, that’s all.

    • ladida says:

      Wouldn’t Zara have had a title if her mother had wanted it? I don’t think it was for sexist reasons, I think Anne specifically rejected it so her kids could have more normal lives.

      • Josie says:

        Zara and Peter aren’t grandchildren of a monarch through a male line — they only would have been given titles if Marc Phillips had accepted a title when he married Anne. It was offered, together they turned it down.

        Edward and Sophie’s children should automatically be styled HRH Prince/Princess and they broke with law and tradition to stop that from happening.

        Andrew and Sarah had every expectation in 1988 and 1990 that the old ways would persist. As has been written about above, circumstances changed and its left their daughters in a somewhat uncomfortable position. They COULD choose to cut the cord and live in the perfectly privileged way of their untitled cousins (even keeping the HRH). Fairly or not, their actions are scrutinized to see which way they turn.

      • hershey says:

        Supposedly the Queen was not comfortable in 1977 with her grandchild being plain Peter Philips. She offered a title to Philips when the marriage took place. She offered the couple a title for their child when he was born. Supposedly HRH offered as that was Anne’s title and her husband did not wish to hold a title. There was no subsidiary viscount or earldom to use from dad. So HRH through the mother was only option.

        Prior to 1917, the HRH descended in the female line one generation so that no sovereigns grandchild was a plain Mr or mrs

  29. InquisitiveNewt says:

    Emma Dent Coad and Chris Williamson are absolute toads, both of whom have been caught out in lies, fabrications and overtly partisan behaviour numerous times. They’re also both morning star acolytes, so it’s unsurprising that they’d agitate over Eugenie’s wedding. It’s what the New and Unimproved Labour Party lives for.
    Just let the girl have her day, for God’s sake.

  30. Josie says:

    By the way, we’ll get a clearer look at the future of the family when Harry and Meghan have kids. By law, they won’t yet be grandchildren of a monarch through the male line, so they would be styled simply Lord or Lady. Then they’d change to HRH Prince or Princess of Sussex when Charles ascends to the throne. That would even be true for George, Charlotte, and Louis except that a new law was passed in 2012/2013 extending the HRH to children of an heir.

    If they don’t pass a special law for Harry’s kids, that might be a signal that Charles’s rumored plans for a slimmed down monarchy are true. But even more telling would be if the Sussexes follow the Wessex lead.

    Will Harry model himself on Andrew or Edward/Anne? I’m genuinely interested to see what happens next.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Depends on when HM passes.

      Charles’s slimmed down monarchy rumor looks like His Line Only and cut out everyone else. Whether or not that translates to his own grandchildren via Harry and Meghan is another thing. His plan might be to cut off all his siblings and their lines, but keep his line all as working royals. Or to keep all his grandchildren as having royal titles. Yes, I think he could be that petty.

      That written, It is unlikely Harry and Meghan’s kids, should they have them, will ever be working royals. But being a working royal and having an HRH title are separate issues.

      • A says:

        I don’t know where it was ever stated that Charles wanted to cut out all of his siblings. I know that was what was initially reported, and there were additional reports over the years that his siblings were unhappy with his plans, but frankly speaking, I do not think this will happen. My impression of Charles’ slimming down idea is that, once the Duke of Kent & Gloucester are no more, they and their lines will be done. He will probably keep his siblings on, perhaps in a limited capacity, and provide the option for them to either stay or leave if they choose. Their children definitely will not work for the Firm. And neither will Harry and Meghan’s children.

      • Josie says:

        This is exactly why I’m interested to see what happens next. Whether they’re working royals or not, will any Sussex grandchildren follow the law and be HRH, or will the Wessex choice persist into the next generation? We genuinely don’t know!

      • notasugarhere says:

        HM’s former private secretary, who openly advocated to the press about keeping Edward and Sophie on as a bridge to the younger generation? He was retired a few months after that. Charles’s influence?

        Nothing has been publicly stated by the royals, all is rumor. We can think Charles might want Andrew out, but Charles cannot change the laws governing Counsellors. Andrew is one until he dies or Charles’s eldest grandson turns 21.

        If betting, I’d say any children Harry and Meghan have will be HRH but will not be working royals. Charles likes titles, he might want all his grandkids to have the honorifics. And there’d be a whole lot of negative press if his multiracial grandkids weren’t princes and princesses.

  31. Veronica S. says:

    Honestly, the timing seems like the most ill-thought part of it. Yes, she’s in line for the throne, but millions in tax dollars down the drain when Brexit is less than a year away and there STILL isn’t a deal on the table is making people squirrely, I imagine.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is the UK government that keeps trotting the royals out to countries in Europe as Brexit ambassadors. The UK government likes the pomp and circumstance of royal weddings.

      • Tina says:

        The present (Conservative) UK government does, yes. Most remainers (half of the country, split annoyingly between the major parties) do not want the royals to be anywhere near Brexit, and leavers are split between the obsequious conservatives on the right, who tend to be royalists, and the anti-globalist Marxists on the left, who do not. So, roughly 3/4 of voters don’t want the royals anywhere near Brexit, diplomacy or anything else important. Sadly for us all, the remaining 1/4 control the government and are marching us over the edge of the cliff that we will fall off in March 2019.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And so the status quo remains

  32. ladida says:

    Are the security costs due to Eugenie or more due to the fact that it will be attended by all the major royals. I guess she could have had it in a country church, like Zara did? I am not a UK taxpayer so I know I don’t get a vote, but I’m all for big royal weddings and I hope it’s televised.

  33. lobbit says:

    Meh, crowds would show up whether they were invited or not, so the cops would have to be on hand regardless. The only thing that seems a wee bit excessive to me is the carriage ride through Windsor.

  34. Citresse says:

    I doubt this wedding will be televised. I’m in Canada but these parasite, lazy “blood princesses” are not my princesses. Eugenie has not done anything to deserve such a grand wedding.

  35. Ramona Q. says:

    This is what happens when nothing shall doth be made of plastic.

  36. Cee says:

    If I were her I would have saved myself a lot of trouble and had a very low-key wedding because the amount of hate directed at her makes me sick just to think of it.
    Peter and Zara had grand weddings and no one said anything about the security costs. Peter even sold access to his own wedding. Eugenie is an actual HRH and this will be a Princess Wedding, people will flock there to see a princess get married and to see the Cambridges and Sussexes plus TQ. The next princess wedding will be charlotte’s because I’m sure as hell Beatrice will be forced to marry in a public registry, in hiding.

    I’d cancel the ballot and stop sharing information about the wedding. All things equal, she should have the same weddings Peter and Zara got and that includes tiaras, security, state cars and carriage rides.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They are choosing to get married on a Friday. If they wanted it to be the biggest possible public event? They would have picked a Saturday.

      • Cee says:

        NOTA I didn’t say they want the biggest event possible. I actually believe this is a very sensible wedding for her to have as a granddaughter to the Queen. She is on par with Peter and Zara. However, she’s vilified so much due to who her parents are, and her “idle” image, that I’m baffled she chose to go with a ballot. It’s not her fault, but both sisters have said, on the record, they know the vile things reported on them.
        Beatrice will be forced to have a scaled down wedding. Louise and James will, too.

    • jwoolman says:

      The security costs would still be there for a low-key wedding, with her grandmother and cousins in attendance. That’s a legitimate state expense. And they should be there, she’s family.

      Does a carriage ride really cost all that much? Mind boggled if so.

      • Cee says:

        Yes, but I think inviting 1200 people to stand on the grounds actually makes security more expensive because they have to vet everyone, even logistics get more difficult. I’m not saying she should have a low-key wedding, I don’t have a problem with her or this wedding, but she knows how much her parents are vilified (rightly so…) and that much of that hatred gets redirected at her sister and herself. Which is why I said that were I her, I would have planned this wedding under the radar and forgone the ballot just to make the optics better.

        I suppose the carriage is for free but the whole route would have to be secured. I honestly love to learn how much security public events need re: snipers, secured buildings, bomb squads, intelligence, etc.

      • hershey says:

        The wedding will happen inside the walls of the castle. That’s always a heavily guarded safe area. The costs of protecting the royal family are lower inside Windsor than a church not on a royal property.

        Making every street safe nearby is incredibly costly.

        The streets around the castle need to security anyway. Anyone turning out for the day to watch, is at risk. The parade will draw more to watch the carriage.

        The biggest issue is making sure the day stays safe for everyone on the day.

        The parade ups the risk for all. And the cost. But those planning are responsible for the high costs.

        And for the safety of those on the streets of Windsor.

        If no huge demand by the public to see her in that carriage, the risk to her and bystanders seems the most stupid part of it all.

    • Karen says:

      Same. I just don’t get why she willingly invites all of this inevitable criticism, scrutiny and unfavorable comparisons.

      A private, discrete affair on one of the Queen’s countryside estates would have been so much better. It would still have been luxurious and grand with canapés and champagne, but she would have escaped the public scrutiny and negative opinions.

      It’s like the Yorks have no game. They clearly do not understand that by being HRH and on the royal gravy train they are already stretching the public generosity. They would be better off keeping a low profile, enjoying their privileges in private and working on their careers. This is 2018, the public does not idolize anyone with a royal title anymore, no one gives a damn about the minor royals. Edward and Sophie chose more wisely for their kids, it seems.

  37. Ted says:

    They both having no lips freaks me out. How do they even kiss? Nobody wants to see their marriage

    • jwoolman says:

      ??? They both look fine to me and their lips are quite normal. Maybe you’ve been looking at too many people who do lip filler injections.

      Who have you been hanging out with that you think these two people are ugly?!? Are they surgically enhanced or what? These two look like normal people.

    • Guest says:

      Harry has no lips, either…..

  38. Lilly says:

    IDK. I just want her to have the wedding of her dreams and, hopefully, a successful marriage. Everyone wants to score points off of the event, and I guess that’s part of being in the monarchy, but it pushes me to be on the bride’s side. It’s not like a civil ceremony would take care of homelessness and I don’t think bashing promotes solutions or any meaningful discussions. The money that could be saved would never be diverted to solutions, it would be fought over by politicians and line someone’s pocket that doesn’t need it. But, if there’s a real way out there, without simply pandering, I’m here for it.

    • Tina says:

      This is a serious point. We honestly don’t have much corruption in the UK. The money that is being spent on security for Eugenie’s wedding comes out of the police budget. That means that there will be less money to fight terrorism here. This is a direct consequence of this wedding. It’s not an abstract scenario.

      • Ravine says:

        The UK’s counterterrorism budget was increased by £50 million pounds this year, to a total of £757 million, so I hardly think another £2 million would make or break the country’s security (and that’s assuming the Daily Fail’s number is even accurate in the first place).

      • Tina says:

        Right. As a person who lives and works in East London, where both counterterrorism and security are somewhat important, I’d quite like the police to have that £2m, if it’s all the same to you. As opposed to spending it on a carriage ride.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Then join RepublicUK and work to change the situation. Otherwise, the government wants to trot out another royal wedding to show the UK in a positive light, so taxpayers pay the costs of security.

      • Tina says:

        Nothing about Eugenie’s wedding will show the UK in a positive light. Harry at least looked progressive with his choice of bride.

  39. Ravine says:

    If there was no security and a bomb went off in the crowd or something, there would be costs to the taxpayer too. Quite possibly more than 2 million pounds (lawsuits, etc.). And that’s not even getting into the tragedy of deaths, permanent injuries, etc. At least they’re doing it in Windsor where presumably security costs are much lower than in London.

    That said, I would prefer to see a trend of lower-tier royals getting married the same way other posh people do: privately. They can share pictures on their Instagram account or whatever. We don’t need a live feed of your elaborate pre-divorce ritual.

    • notasugarhere says:

      For them, this is private. AFAIK this will not be televised.

      • Ravine says:

        Well, they invited members of the public (total strangers) to apply to attend, so it’s a public event in that sense. Plus there’s an outdoor carriage procession. What I mean by private is: inconspicuous, off-limits. They can pick a chapel in the centre of one of their sprawling country estates and hold an intimate wedding shielded from public view. Make it clear that there won’t be any way to see the bride and groom at all. Then if people STILL feel the need to loiter outside the gates, it’s their business, but they weren’t encouraged to do so.

      • Addie says:

        Royals have attended in their multiples to others’ non-royal weddings. Security would have been present. Maybe not as much because the majority of expenses were paid by the bride/groom and their parents. Thinking of Amanda Knatchbull (?) where Charles walked her down the aisle and the Queen attended. It seemed to be full of well-titled folk but there was no mention of millions in security having to be provided by the public.

      • Addie says:

        If it is private then it should all be funded privately. When they invite 1200 of the public and insist on carriage ride in a non-secured area THEN it becomes a publicly funded affair. So they should stop using the taxpayer as their private cash card to fund their private wishes and fantasies. All the titles in the world don’t disguise the fact that they are given from within the family to the family. It’s all rather ridiculous.

    • Addison says:

      Ravine: Ha, ha, ha. Elaborate pre-divorce ritual. Hilarious!

      Although I do hope you are wrong about that. Divorce is always sad even when it’s for the best. Because if you are divorcing it means there is pain involved.

  40. Kat says:

    “But they’re BLOOD PRINCESSES! They’re no different than Harry, and look at the big, extravagant wedding he got!” No. One of these things is not like the other. Harry is a working royal (at least for now), and he is the son of the the Prince of Wales, who will be king. The York girls are not working royals, and they’re the children of a national embarrassment who was caught on tape trying to sell access to the royal family, and a guy some people call Pedo Andy.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Shockingly, the Windsors have even worse in their closets than Andrew and Fergie.

      Edward was never supposed to be a working royal, but he and Sophie married at Windsor and had a carriage ride.

      Peter and Autumn will never be working royals, they married at Windsor and they had a carriage ride.

      Lady Helen Windsor, far far down the line, also married in a splashy ceremony at Windsor but no carriage ride.

  41. Addison says:

    I think the security costs may be in relation to the other people who will attend. The Yorks may not be targets of terrorists. But one cannot expect her grandmother “The Queen” to not be present as well as her uncles and cousins who will one day be on the throne. So security costs are necessary to protect those that are “working” royals. It’s not her fault that her grandmother is the queen and that her uncle and cousin will one day be king. It’s her family.

    But I do understand that the public only sees the cost. If I were a Brit I might be quite mad about this. But as a non-Brit I only see a bride who wants those whom she loves most to be there. Some of those people are potential targets and need to be well protected.