Princess Eugenie’s wedding won’t be televised on the BBC, it was the BBC’s decision


The Summer Party 2018 presented by Serpentine Galleries and Chanel - Arrivals

I felt like an idiot for months because I had no idea what the actual protocol was for Princess Eugenie’s wedding. I truly didn’t know if her wedding would be broadcast in the UK or abroad. I felt certain that it wouldn’t be broadcast here in America, but I really didn’t know what the deal was for UK broadcast rights. The way the BBC operates, the “rules” about which royals are important enough for big splashy weddings, all of that goes over my head. So I’m grateful for some clarity from – gulp – the Daily Mail, even if that clarity is couched in bitchy gossip.

BBC executives have turned down the chance to broadcast Princess Eugenie’s wedding next month – because they think it will be a ratings flop. I can reveal that Prince Andrew was attempting to strike a deal with the network to televise his youngest daughter’s big day. However, after secret meetings with the Beeb, courtiers were told it was a no-go.

Sky is also running no more than snippets throughout the day as part of its rolling news coverage. However, I understand that ITV may be coming to the rescue with a full programme of coverage. A source tells me: ‘From the outset the instruction from the very top was that Eugenie’s wedding must be televised. The BBC was approached because they have a special relationship with Buckingham Palace and a formula that works. But they turned it down because they don’t think enough people will tune in and that there isn’t enough support for the Yorks.’

‘The feeling at the Palace is that the BBC has dropped the ball. At the end of the day this is going to be a huge Royal Wedding, with all the senior members of the Royal Family in attendance. But nobody wants to take the risk and spend the money it would cost to put it on air.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Do you believe this? I believe that broadcasters have questions about whether there’s a lot of “support” for the Yorks. I believe that Prince Andrew has been using his daughter’s wedding to reassert himself – he’s a father-of-the-bridezilla, or dadzilla or something. Andrew desperately wants his daughters to be seen as equal (in the public eye) to William and Harry. And… that’s just not going to happen.

I also believe that… there is significant interest in this wedding. The interest is not at the level of Harry and Meghan’s wedding, but people love a good royal wedding. Plus, people will be more interested in the wedding because of the royal guests: we’ll be tuning in to see what Meghan and Kate wear as much as we’ll want to see Eugenie’s dress. I hope it does air on some UK channel, and I hope it’s streamed too, so I can watch it.

Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

109 Responses to “Princess Eugenie’s wedding won’t be televised on the BBC, it was the BBC’s decision”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Digital Unicorn says:

    I feel for her as her wedding day has been hijacked by her father and his raging ego. Andrew has always wanted his daughters to be treated just like William and Harry!

    It will get covered in the press but not dedicated coverage – their best hope is a partnership with YouTube and get it streamed online.

    • Lola says:

      Andrew needs to get over himself. He’s got to realize what the future of the monarchy will be, or he’s really going to be out on his ass when Charles becomes king.

    • Morning Coffee says:

      Andrew, of all people, should know that his daughters were never going to be treated the same as William and Harry. Andrew was #3 child and the “spare.” His children are even less than spares at this point. He was raised in the pecking order, so to think the rules would somehow change for his girls? I understand wanting the best for them as any father would, but this isn’t a surprise.

    • aaa says:

      I don’t necessarily think that Andrew sees his daughters as on par with William and Harry but probably on par with the Gloucesters and Kents. Andrew grew up in a world where male line grandchildren/nieces and nephews/cousins were HRHs and the elder (and sometimes non-elder) children were working royals.

      Since his younger daughter Eugenie has established herself outside the royal bubble workwise, it is entirely possible that he raised Eugenie not to not be part of The Firm and raised Beatrice to be a working royal.

      Andrew has a lot of negative qualities, and of course times change, but Andrew’s purported attitudes are not that out-of-whack considering the environment and traditions that he grew up in IMO

      • Algernon says:

        This is all true but Prince Edward saw the writing on the wall and adjusted accordingly. Something about Andrew, specifically, is keeping him from making the adjustment.

      • aaa says:

        Andrew married in 1986 and had children between 1988-1990. Edward married in 1999 and had children between 2003-2007. A lot happened and changed between the timeframe that Andrew got married and had children and the timeframe that Edward got married and had children. The writing that Edward saw on the wall and adjusted accordingly for was not in place in the 1980s and early 1990s.

      • perplexed says:

        Does Andrew really strike anyone as particularly astute or bright? I didn’t think so. I don’t think it matters when he married — he’d still probably be off in some other world.

        I don’t really remember hearing anything whatsoever about Margaret’s children (and probably didn’t know their names till reading the comments section of this blog) so I think Andrew may simply be lacking in emotional intelligence in terms of how his children might be perceived by the public at large. In fact, I think his children are probably being given more importance now than they would have in previous decades — not sure if it’s because of the much-touted “blood princess” thing.

      • Algernon says:

        @ aaa That is true but Andrew could still change stride now and he’s not.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Beatrice and Eugenie are in line to be Counsellors of State. That is a legal requirement that will never fall to Edward or Anne’s children. If HM passes away in the next 16 years (likely), Bea is automatically a Counsellor to Charles. If Andrew passes away, Eugenie becomes one too.

        Charles cannot do anything about it. Because of that and the duties it entails, it would make sense if Beatrice (and possibly Eugenie) were working royals.

      • aaa says:

        Margaret is a female descendant of a monarch and because of that her children were not expected to be working royals. Andrew is from the male line and the precedent was that, at a minimum, his eldest child become a working royal. The paradigm changed in the late 1990s, when (for PR and money grab reasons IMO), it was decided to limit working royals to the direct descendants of the monarch and heir.

        How has Andrew not changed stride? QEII is still the monarch and what Andrew is supposedly pushing for is in accordance with how she has been running the show. IMO Beatrice would be a working royal right now if the only thing taken into consideration was the way the current Queen operates, however as part of succession planning, the Queen has (understandably) allowed Charles to call the shots in certain areas, and one of the areas Charles has been allowed to call the shots is who are the working royals amongst the generation that William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, et. al. belong to.

    • Mac says:

      IDK, it sounds like Andrew was “negotiating” a deal for the BBC to pay him for broadcasting rights.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      You know what? I can’t stand Andrew, but his one redeeming factor (in my biased eyes) is how much he fights for his daughters.

      I come from a large and hugely patriarchal family, where the default stance is unrepentant sexism…..I’m even a mini-pariah at the moment for having carried out a small, one woman, feminist rebellion recently (and won, Ha! 🖕)

      So I admit I enjoy seeing him fight hard for his girls. I love the fact that he probably even thinks they’re more important than the Queen, lol.

      I know it’s all ego driven, but I still love it. ❤️ ❤️ 💕

    • niamh darlington says:

      tbh- us brits don’t care- she’s nowhere near a much tabloid fun as her mother

    • notasugarhere says:

      I think this is Andrew and Fergie, not Eugenie. She and Jack are choosing to get married mid-day on a Friday. That doesn’t scream someone who wants attention or it would have been a weekend date. It feels more like the Saturday day of fun for guests is more their style. She may have learned through the years just to stand back, roll her eyes, and let her crazy parents be.

      William is scheduled to be at an anti-illegal wildlife trading conference in London that Friday.

  2. JaneDoesWork says:

    I don’t think they needed to make it an all day thing like with Kate and Meghan’s weddings… but I find it extremely difficult to believe that a 3-4 hour live coverage would not generate enough ratings to make it worth it. Hell, I’d watch that.

  3. Marie says:

    Please Eugenie, for the love of all that is holy, just elope and get done with it. This sitch is getting more and more embarrassing.

  4. Lumbina says:

    I’d look at photos of what people wore after the event, but not the bride. I just don’t have any interest and the cost of streaming it like some kind of extravaganza would really irk me. I suspect many other people here feel the same (British here).

  5. Susannah says:

    Hopefully BBC World News will cover the comings and goings at least. I’d love to see the dramatic grand entrance to the church in a big, royal gown, especially as it could be a total train wreck with the York family fashion taste. The carriage ride through the beautiful streets of Windsor and seeing celebrity guests arrive would be fun too. I can see where there wouldn’t be that much interest in the entire ceremony but hopefully the highlights will be shown.

    • HK9 says:

      Aww Yess, I forgot about the York sisters taste in clothing. That dress really could be a train wreck. And I don’t mean the usual kind, I mean it might be a Michael Bay a la Transformers train wreck where the birds stop chirping and the low bass of a Hans Zimmer sound track play just before we see an explosion of meringue . We have to see this. :-)

  6. Becks1 says:

    I can believe that there wouldn’t be enough interest. If it airs, I’m sure people will turn it on to have as background, or to see the arrivals, but its on a Friday anyway, so that will affect ratings, and you can follow the arrivals just as well on twitter or IG.

    • Aurelia says:

      They braodcast Sophie and Eddies wedding. Its obvs there would be more interest in eugenies, especially coming off harry’s and meghan’s. Bad move.

      • aaa says:

        I suspect that it’s going to turn out that the BBC’s loss is ITV’s gain. Among traditionalists the BBC is the go to network for all things royal, but I don’t think that the BBC occupies that position among the younger crowd and if ITV ends up broadcasting Eugenie’s wedding then all this mishigas about the BBC not airing the wedding will be reduced to pre-wedding randomness.

  7. Alexandria says:

    I tot they would make do with a 1h coverage. I can say I’m interested to watch it because it is the first royal princess wedding since Princess Anne.

  8. Heather says:

    It honestly never occurred to me that it would bd broadcast here. I don’t know anyone who remotely cares about or even really knows who Eugenie is. She’s simply not famous the way Harry and Meghan are.

    I’d expect a Hello cover spread, no more.

    • Skylark says:

      Absolutely this, a bit of news coverage on the day followed by a Hello spread is all this wedding warrants. The idea that there would/should be dedicated news coverage is just ludicrous.

      Every time I see Jack, I see Harry Enfield’s Tim Nice but Dim.

  9. LondonGal says:

    Good. Literally no one cares. And that, ladies and germs, is what happens when your Father is a loafing, womanising, useless knob.

  10. Mego says:

    Such grandiosity on the part of the Yorks. If they are hell bent on making it accessible and public live stream it on Youtube or something. I can’t say I blame the BBC. That is of, course, if any of this is actually true.

  11. Polly says:

    I live in the UK and there really is no interest whatsoever in this wedding as far as I can tell. Most people aren’t even aware it’s happening. The BBC made the right choice, we’ve already had one royal wedding this year with a couple who the public actually like and care about. Prince Andrew is wildly unpopular even among people who support the monarchy and although that’s obviously not Eugenie’s fault, any child of his getting special treatment when she’s only a minor royal who doesn’t even do public engagements, well.. it wouldn’t be well received by the public.

  12. Emma says:

    The BBC is taxpayer funded. Had this gone ahead I suspect there would have been a bit of an outcry at having to shell out for the coverage of the wedding of a woman who is, despite her father’s best efforts, a minor royal. Wouldn’t surprise me if this played into the Beeb’s decision to pass on it.

  13. Beth says:

    Did anyone care enough to actually watch it anyway? They’re part of the BRF, but no where near as famous as William and Harry.

  14. Zapp Brannigan says:

    Poor Prince Andrew, maybe he can take another relaxing break with his good friend Jeffrey Epstein to get over the stress of this difficult time.

  15. MerryGirl says:

    Hubris is a funny thing. Bad enough to think people care about a non-working royal far down the royal chain, but ridiculous to want an a bigger, more flamboyant wedding than the sons of the heir. Have a nice small wedding sure and we’ll look at the pictures of you and your guests, but inviting more guests than the church can hold, wanting the celebration to stretch for 2 days, wanting to go one-up on the popular royals. Puleeeze!

  16. Cerys says:

    People will tune in to see who is there and what they are wearing but it is unlikely to generate the same level of interest that William and Harry had with their respective weddings.
    The press will cover the event and no doubt it will feature on the news but a 4 hour tv spectacular is unnecessary for a minor royal.
    Zara and Peter Phillips are both grandchildren of the queen and their weddings were not televised live. I, also, don’t remember a big, live tv event for Edward and Sophie but I could be wrong.
    Eugenie may be a “blood princess” but she is still a minor royal in most people’s eyes.

    • Emma says:

      Edward and Sophie’s wedding was televised, and had quite a positive reception I think. I may be wrong but given that it was in 1999, it might have been the first televised Royal event (other than calendar events like Trooping the Colour) since Diana’s funeral.

      • Kay says:

        But then again, Edward was the son of the monarch. His wedding compared more to Harry and Meghan’s in terms of importance. Eugenie is the grandchild of the monarch. She’s too far from the centre of things, it just doesn’t generate the same kind of interest.

      • Cerys says:

        Thanks. I couldn’t remember what happened with E&S.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward was the son of the monarch but neither he nor Sophie were going to be working royals. He was a joke at that point, still smarting from the Royal Knockout debacle.

        It was really the wedding of the “minor royal” term some like to throw around about Harry and Meghan. It was a Windsor attempt to show the marriage of the Queen’s last child was hopefully going to last. Had to keep up the image. It wasn’t until a few years and an entrapment scandal later that E&S became official working royals.

        In spite of that, Sophie did more events as an unofficial royal those years than Kate Middleton has ever managed. Twice as much in fact. While expecting and nearly dying from the delivery.

      • Nic919 says:

        Sophie was doing engagements even while running her PR business.

  17. Gem says:

    “I also believe that… there is significant interest in this wedding.”

    Based on what? I’m British and I have zero interest. None of the people I know here have any interest in this, most can barely distinguish between the two York sisters. Perhaps I’m living in my own bubble!

  18. B says:

    Sorry, but literally no one cares about her.

  19. Amelie says:

    Question: was Edward and Sophie’s wedding broadcast live on TV?? I’ve always found Edward and Andrew interesting in the sense that they were born so late after Charles and Anne. There is a 10 year gap between Anne and Andrew and I always wondered why the Queen had two kids in quick succession followed by a decade of no children and then Andrew and Edward. Since Edward was the last one to get married, I would be so surprised if his was televised.

    Given that Andrew is the third child of the monarch, not sure why he thought his daughters’ weddings would be broadcast, even if they are blood princesses. I think the York sisters are interesting but I wouldn’t sit through several hours of coverage of their wedding. Youtube clips and some nice articles with great pictures are enough! And since Eugenie runs her own Instagram, she’ll probably post some nice behind the scenes stuff herself on it.

    • perplexed says:

      I think it was, but I’m not sure if it was aired by the BBC specifically.

      I didn’t watch it myself but I thought it was aired because he was a direct child of the Queen, not a grandchild. And we knew his name and which brother he was. I don’t think anyone specifically cares about him, but we know which prince he is (the one that occasionally shows up at convocations?).

  20. Chatty Cath says:

    I’d watch it but I’m housebound and if my team are playing I’d rather watch that online. I feel so sorry for Eugenie now. Her parents cannot seem to stop riling the rest of the Royal Family and the public. Dark rumours about Andrew swirl around Windsor obviously leaked in the ‘friend of a friend says’ way but even if embellished they have basis. The BBC inflicts a lot of programs on its viewers that are way worse than this wedding, horrible cookery and ‘lifestyle’ stuff at peak times now. It’s obviously austerity as the BBC makes some really excellent ones. Anyway I think people would be interested in the wedding, but not the extravagent carnival afterwards. That’s tacky

  21. perplexed says:

    Is the BBC publicly funded? If that’s the case, maybe that’s why they’re hesitant to air IF it were hypothetically to turn out to be a ratings flop.

    Were Margaret’s kids weddings televised? That’s basically the York sisters’ equivalent…not William and Harry.

    To be honest, I don’t get why you’d want your wedding televised. William and Harry probably had to have their weddings televised out of “duty”, but if given the choice, I suspect they’d have preferred to not have anything aired….and then mocked on Youtube. I also don’t know why you’d want everyone gossiping about your wedding and how you looked….seems like too much pressure for even the prettiest movie star.

  22. Chaine says:

    For the love of god, why don’t they just get a vendor to do a livestream like every freaking body else does that wants people that can’t attend in person to be able to see the wedding live? Then all the hundreds of people who want to see it can tune in.

    Also does the groom remind anyone else of Jim Halpert? Maybe they could get broadcaster interest if they called it The Royal Wedding Co-starring Jim From The Office.

  23. Derrière says:

    I can barely keep the two princesses names straight? And I read CB regularly. If Andrew, Fergie, and Eugenie wanted a televised spectacular, she should have married someone famous, not Joe Schmoe from the local pub.

    I feel for Eugenie because her parents are obviously behind all of this, but I also think she could have saved herself the embarrassing headlines if she had either been more firm or stopped believing her parents’ hype.

  24. Maleficent says:

    Get with the times Andy! Stream it if you want your daughter’ wedding to be viewed by strangers so bad. If he wanted his daughter to be seen as on par with William and Harry publicly should’ve encouraged them to get their public profiles up. The last minute Brit Vogue interview and shoot did nothing to help.

  25. sassbr says:

    The Palace is out of touch-Princess Anne’s wedding was a big deal because she was the daughter of the Queen, and the country had watched her grow up and loved her. Eugenie may be the Queen’s granddaughter but it’s 2018, the UK is not what it was in the ’60s. Little Charlotte’s nuptials, should she choose to do so in 25 years or so, will be a bigger deal than Eugenie’s. Was Zara Phillips wedding a big deal? Not really-and she married a celebrity. Why would Eugenie expect more?

    • perplexed says:

      ” and the country had watched her grow up and loved her”

      I think that does make a difference. We didn’t really watch the York sisters grow up so none of us have grown attached to her. Even if Diana had lived, people would still probably feel some sort of attachment to William and Harry since people have seen them through all stages of their lives. I assume that’s also why interest in Charles’s wedding was there — the nation had likely seen him grown up in the way we’re seeing with George now. When George grows up, we’ll care who he marries since we’ve seen him in all his chubby glory.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Many people did watch the York sisters grow up. And have sympathy for them both because of their parents divorce and because of their parents in general.

      • perplexed says:

        I honestly don’t think they’ve gotten the coverage William and Harry have throughout life. Sure, their births were covered (at least the birth of the oldest one likely was), but other than that I don;’t think there’s old footage of them on Youtube where you’d see them crawling on a blanket for a photo call. I think the coverage for William and Harry, and now George and Charlotte, has been deep enough for people who don’t even like the royals much to form some kind of feeling of recognition for them.

  26. Fluffy Princess says:

    Yes, to all of the comments. I am not surprised at the BBC’s refusal to air the wedding. I read this site all the time, and am old enough to have seen Charles and Diana’s wedding live (which was amazing, since I was a kid), and have followed along all these years. But, like so many others have stated, for the life of me, I do not know which York sister is which. I keep having to check which one is getting married — Eugenie? Beatrice? Was she the one the octopus hat? Was it the other sister? I dunno.

    PLUS, let’s be honest, most are waiting to see Kate and William and George and Charlotte (will she be sassy again? omygodsocute!) and Harry and Meghan.

  27. Derrière says:

    Now that I think about it, maybe she could get a Southern preacher to make a sermon and it might make her wedding less dull and worthy of broadcast! Lol sorry but I haven’t forgotten those irksome reactions during H&M’s wedding by the York girls.

  28. Anony101 says:

    How has this worked in the past? Did Peter or Zara Phillips have their wedding broadcast by any of the major networks? If not, I’d say that is the precident that the York sisters should also follow.

    If you’re not in the immediate line of succession behind the heir to the throne, you simply can’t expect the same kind of attention for major life events. Recognize the privilege that you do have and get over it. It’s silly because Eugenie’s wedding (and Bea if she ever marries) will still receive plenty of press no matter what. But it’s definitely not worth the additional security or administrative costs to taxpayers that a full on broadcast/parade/shutdown would incur.

    It’s also incredibly tacky to be shopping your daughter’s wedding around in the way that Andrew is doing. Focus more on the event itself, your guests, and your daughter’s happiness, not creating a celebrity circus moment. Andrew and Fergie both just seem like they are using this as an opportunity to whitewash their own past failings and re-establish their power within the royal family. I wonder how TQ feels about all of this nonsense.

  29. Other Renee says:

    I happily got up in the middle of the night to watch Harry and Meghan’s wedding on the BBC via my YouTube subscription. (Best deal ever. I pretty much watch anything on my tv for a ridiculously low price.) However, I have zero desire to watch the spoiled entitled daughter of a haughty entitled prince get married while 1200 randoms stand by with no food or even bathrooms available. Just a PR stunt to make Eugenie seem important.

  30. perplexed says:

    I feel kind of terrible saying this but if she looked like Princess Caroline’s daughter (whose name I can’t remember at the moment either), I think people would be more interested in this wedding. She’s not unattractive by real world standards, but I think you have to have the perception of glamour (or a reality-show storyline ) attached to you to generate interest in this kind of thing.

    I think I probably would have been more interested in the proposal at the Emmys if the guy had looked like Hugh Jackman. It’s shallow but tv is a visual medium….

    • Lumbina says:

      See I loved the emmys proposal because he didn’t look like Hugh Jackman. It was just pure love without the distraction of movie star looks or performances. It was just so real.

      I might not want to see them have sex, but I sure as hell loved seeing them affirm their love like that. It was beautiful.

    • GymTime says:

      Perplexed, you’re so right. And as for Harry and William, I think a bit of the interest comes from their mother, her glamour and how she was/is so widely loved. The vast majority of Brits seem to dislike or even hate Charles, and the rest seem to be ambivalent at best. Obviously their place in the hierarchy (William eventually will be King) matters a lot too when it comes to public interest.

  31. Cee says:

    Just hire a television crew and stream the wedding on the BRF YouTube channel! Get the views and share the wedding with whomever, wherever, is interested.

  32. GymTime says:

    Andrew, like Fergie, is kind of sleazy. He’s friends with the infamous Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, the thirsty Clooneys are weeping over the BBC’s decision. No royal pap walk for you, George and Amal. They were already leaking weeks ago about how they’d scored invites since they’re so elite and high society, probably because they didn’t want another repeat of M&H’s wedding, after which everyone was going, “What were the Clooneys doing there?”

  33. aaa says:

    I don’t have strong feelings about Eugenie’s wedding being televised but I don’t think that you have to have vast interest in an event to televise it, rather just enough interest that you think more people will tune in for the wedding than the regularly scheduled programs.

    • Tina says:

      It’s expensive for the BBC to televise royal weddings when they’re not going to get many viewers (and will inevitably draw criticism). They have to pay the usual suspects to commentate, which costs a lot more money than the Daily Politics people (who they are paying anyway) and the usual Who Do You Think You Are repeats that they usually show on Friday afternoons.

      • aaa says:

        The BBC also has royal reporters and lifestyle reporters on their payroll and I would be unpleasantly surprised to find out that royal and lifestyle reporters are paid more than political reporters.

        Also it is not as if the BBC is not covering the wedding at all, the BBC has stated that they will be covering the wedding just not broadcasting it live so there will be camera operators, reporters and commentators in place at Windsor and in the studio on October 12. Obviously the BBC feels that they will be better off financially if they just cover the wedding as a news story and not do a live broadcast and that’s fine but that does not mean that the same thing applies to all broadcasters. As I mentioned in another post, the BBC is the go to network among traditionalists which is probably why they were Andrew’s #1 choice but they are not the only choice, I guess we’ll know soon enough if another broadcaster is willing to do a live broadcast.

      • Tina says:

        It’s not about royal reporters or lifestyle reporters. If you are going to cover an event like this live, you have to have a number of presenters, who are brought in specially for events like these and are paid separately as this isn’t part of their ordinary duties. (I would, however, pay any amount of money to hear Simon McCoy’s colour commentary on this sort of thing). I highly doubt ITV has any interest in covering it either, although some internet thing like Netflix or Amazon Prime might give it a go.

  34. Flying fish says:

    I’ll watch just to see the fashion and to get a glimpse of Meghan and Harry!

  35. Sage says:

    I would watch if Eugenies wedding is televised. I would like to see the dress, tiara, guests and her families faces. Some members of Harry’s family looked so miserable at his wedding..