Princess Eugenie’s wedding will begrudgingly air on ITV, not the BBC

Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank leaving the wedding of Daisy Jenks and Charlie Van Straubenzee in Surrey

I’m of two minds about Princess Eugenie’s wedding. On one side, I think it’s exciting that a “blood princess” is going to have a big, splashy wedding at Windsor Castle, and I’m genuinely happy that Eugenie will have “her day.” On the other side, I do think she and her parents are going way overboard, perhaps as a way to insert themselves into the royal conversation and convince everyone that there’s a lot of interest in the York princesses. But that’s the thing: the British people really aren’t buying the idea of Eugenie and Beatrice taking on bigger roles and being bigger deals in the royal ecosystem. The BBC didn’t even want to air Eugenie’s wedding, which is a pretty big sign that there doesn’t seem to be that much interest. So the British outlet ITV picked up the rights to air Eugenie’s wedding:

First it was turned down by the BBC, then it looked as if ITV might turn up their nose too. But now I can reveal that Princess Eugenie’s upcoming wedding will, after all, be televised – allowing her proud dad Prince Andrew to breathe a huge sigh of relief. The Prince has been determined to ensure his younger daughter’s nuptials make it on to our screens, giving her a big day to rival Meghan and Harry’s spectacle in May.

ITV’s This Morning has stepped in at the 11th hour to make Andrew’s dream come true, and will cover the wedding live from Windsor on Friday, October 12. Called This Morning At The Royal Wedding, the show will be hosted by regular Friday presenters Ruth Langsford and Eamonn Holmes. It is expected to run for around three hours from around 10am, giving viewers a chance to see glamorous guests arriving, and climaxing with Eugenie leaving the chapel in her wedding gown. The MoS also told how, with Eugenie keen to outdo Harry and Meghan’s spectacle, she had invited more than 850 guests to St George’s Chapel, which holds 800. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex married at the chapel there were 600 guests.

[From The Daily Mail]

So I guess this means that BBC America won’t air the wedding? I guess I can find a live stream, maybe? Ugh. Well, I’m glad Eugenie is getting her big, spectacular wedding. And by that I mean, I’m glad Prince Andrew is getting HIS wedding, since he seems to be pulling the strings here.

Oh, and here’s another sign that Andrew has overstepped: there’s a petition circulating about Eugenie’s wedding. People are calling for “House of Commons to urge the Government to commit no public money to the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, and to publish a report of all costs to taxpayers.” While the royal family is paying for some of the wedding, the petition notes that “the exact details of royal wedding funding are shrouded in secrecy.” Thousands of people have already signed the petition.

Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank leaving the wedding of Daisy Jenks and Charlie Van Straubenzee in Surrey

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Related stories

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

119 Responses to “Princess Eugenie’s wedding will begrudgingly air on ITV, not the BBC”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I’m only seeing sunglasses. It’s all I got lol.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Those are a horror, aren’t they?

      Last I read, about 20,000 or so signed. Not going to make a wit of difference though.

      It really *is* mostly Andrew and Sarah’s wedding, isn’t it? I can just imagine him throwing tantrums all over the place, and “mummy” shrugging her shoulders and having someone calling in some favors to placate her favorite. Sarah is more than likely reliving *her* glory days, and loving having an “open purse” to spend freely again. Some poster here said the other day that Bea and Eug are just used to letting them get their way, so they just go along with it. Could be… but I thing Eug is liking this, too, and I get the feeling that she is caught up in their feeling that she “deserves” all of this hoopla (850 guests (who KNOWS that many people??), 2nd day “fair”, carriage ride waving to the peons).

      Eh…. I won’t be getting up early for this one. I’ll wait for pics here.

      • Tina says:

        Yeah, I mean, I don’t want them to have the stupid carriage ride, but I won’t sign the petition. It won’t make any difference to anything and seems mean-spirited. We shouldn’t necessarily read anything into the numbers of how many signed the petition vs how many applied for tickets. Most people are utterly indifferent.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Maybe Andrew and Sarah will rock up to the altar and ask the archbishop to re-marry them in the middle of the ceremony?!?!

    • ElleBee says:

      She looks like Dr. Nefario in those goggles

    • elephant says:

      Mad Eye Moody

    • Maum says:

      Same! I didn’t even read the article. Just came on to say she looks like she’s wearing weird scientist binoculars/ night vision glasses.

      Bizarre.

  2. Alix says:

    Dadzilla. Andrew’s idiocy is going to cast a shadow on Eugenie, unfortunately.

    • me46 says:

      Not just Dadzilla. Eugenie is jealous of William and Harry and wants to upstage them. I bet she’s been a big bridezilla.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah that line in there about Eugenie being “keen to outdo” Harry and Meghan was interesting, because so much of this coverage has been that Andrew and Fergie are just having a field day and Eugenie is just along for the ride. That was almost a bit of snark aimed at Eugenie.

      • Alix says:

        She could very well be a regular everyday bridezilla (though I doubt it), but it’s her parents (esp. Andrew) who are in competition with Charles and his sons. Fact is, she’s a member of a junior line of the family and will never be as high-profile as Will/Harry.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If Eugenie had wanted that, the wedding would have been on Saturday not Friday. I’d say that one thing was something she and Jack got that they wanted. The rest of the drama is Andrew and Fergie as per usual.

    • Eliza says:

      I totally think this is 100% Andrew. He’s planning a lot. He’s contacting tv stations. He’s working with vendors.

      I know a lot of people think that if she didn’t want it, then it wouldn’t happen as it is. But speaking as someone with anxiety in crowds with inlaws who invited 300+ to our wedding I can say it’s not always as simple as that. Family dynamics are more complicated than all or nothing for many people. I don’t doubt she wants a royal wedding, but the extras reek of Andrew trying to show his older brother up.

    • Jemina says:

      She’s had to wait for ages, she can be bridezilla if she wants to be one lol.

      • Natalie S says:

        She’s 28. How long was she waiting?

      • Jan90067 says:

        Natalie S, I think she’s referring to the fact that E & J have been “dating” for about 8-9 years.

        Funny though how no one called HER Waity Eugenie for that. Or Bea, dating that loser for 10 years before he dumped her and married the next one he dated (and had a kid with) just months later.

      • Natalie S says:

        I thought about that as I was writing my first post but Eugenie has a job and her own interests. Kate didn’t seem to have anything else going on in her life. She structured her work schedule at Jigsaw around being there for William and even dropped the dragon boat race when she got back with William. She was Waity Katie because what else was she doing?

  3. Beth says:

    Why does she wear those hideously ugly sunglasses so often? They make her look like a robot. Break them in half and throw those shades away!

  4. abbi says:

    I don’t know what’s more embarrassing–the petition, or those goggles.

  5. Becks1 says:

    Huh.I didn’t realize Harry and Meghan “only” invited 600.

    Anyway, I get that Eugenie wants her day….but televised weddings are boring. I watched Will and Kate’s because ROYAL WEDDING!!!! and I watched Harry and Meghan’s because it had some unique aspects to it – the American pastor, the cellist, etc. – and Harry and Meghan were so darn cute the whole time – but really, as someone who got up at 4 am for Will and Kate’s and 430 for Harry and Meghan’s – the part that people care about are the arrivals, and then the big exit from the church and the carriage ride. The actual ceremony is usually pretty boring. I get that they aren’t going to record the arrivals and then NOT the wedding, but pictures work just as well usually for the arrivals.

    I guess what I’m saying is – there may be a great deal of interest in this wedding and it still doesn’t mean it has to be aired live. But whatever. I’m not British and I’m not going to go out of my way to watch this live, but I’ll definitely follow along on twitter.

    • Becks1 says:

      Sure. I follow along and enjoy the gossip and drama and like the history of the royal family, but at the end of the day, I’m not British, so maybe British people are more interested in this wedding than I am. (Maybe they’re angrier about it too, bc of the cost, but I’m not sure about that.) I can still have an opinion though lol.

  6. jessamine says:

    This really seems like a push by her Really Awful Thirsty Parents than Eugenie herself since she and Jack don’t live an overly public life.

    • Noodles says:

      It’s really hard to tell whether this is being pushed by her parents or not but I think we have to remember that the Royals are in a unique and bizarre situation. In a normal family, one cousins wedding shouldn’t and wouldn’t be more important than another’s. In this family both William and Harry’s weddings have been billed as weddings of the century. There has been so much talk about how amazing and virtually goddess like the brides have been to the point of stupidity. Even though this is all just hype and dependant upon your distance to the crown, I’m sure that this is a total mind f*** for a young woman who feels compared on every level. It must be very hard for all of the royals to remain objective.

  7. Myriam says:

    Is it really that big of a deal? Jeez, Andrew, get a grip

  8. Chaine says:

    Lol the article quoted is so snarky—ITV “to make Andrew’s dream come true”—he is going to be so sunk if Charles is in charge of things by the time Beatrice gets married.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Good point
      Andrew (and Sarah) are both thirsty thirstier thirstiest and their “girls” go along with whatever they want. It is totally ridic that this has to be televised live by ITV.

    • ladida says:

      Haha!!

  9. Magdalin says:

    I wish that Andrew would realize how thirsty and entitled this makes him look. Like, even thirstier and more entitled than he has always appeared to be.

    It will only serve to backfire and tick off the public and Charles. But honestly, it seems as though, because his wedding was so lavish, Andrew doesn’t understand why his daughter’s can’t be the same. HE was the SON of the monarch. She is the granddaughter of the monarch and the daughter of a Duke (a royal duke, but whatever).

    I hope Eugenie enjoys a wonderful day, but I’m glad the petition exists and I hope that other things continue to remind Andrew and Sarah of how far they overstepped in this situation. Just enjoy the day in a natural way. Don’t try to force something that isn’t there.

    • Masamf says:

      The petition existed for Harry and Meghan too so…

      • Jemina says:

        Lol, indeed it did exist….. so what does that tell you, Mag? When they expect taxpayers to pay for things they can easily pay for themselves (security for these events being the main issue) there will always be petitions.

  10. SWP says:

    Genuine question, no snark: would this drama be happening if Harry hadn’t just gotten married and allegedly bumped her wedding date?

    • Magdalin says:

      It probably adds to the intensity, but the drama would have happened either way, in my opinion. It’s her parents and this wedding is a couple of things to them:
      1) Re-entry into royal adjacent public life for Sarah Ferguson
      2) Establishment of Eugenie (and her sister) as important enough to warrant this level of attention and hopefully a future role as, at least, a semi-working royal.

      And, I think they are truly pissed off about that super mean-spirited article that came out recently and want to pull all the stops.

      • Lunde says:

        The drama would have happened either way because the weddings off minor members of the Royal family are usually not televised and not big public affairs. I am old enough to remember the weddings of the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret’s children and they were usually covered by just a few minutes on the evening news – not hours of rolling coverage. Even Prince Edward’s wedding to Sophie got less than an hour of coverage.

        This is more about Andrew failing to accept his new position – that he is not the heir to the throne and that he will soon be downgraded to minor royal status as brother to the King and Uncle to the heir.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward and Sophie’s was broadcast in full even on some stations outside the UK (Fox of all things in the US). At the time they were not expected to be working royals, but still the wedding was televised. 200 million viewers estimated by the BBC report at the time.

      • aaa says:

        Princess Margaret’s wedding was broadcasted on British television. her wedding was the first royal wedding to be broadcast on television.

        Queen Elizabeth and Margaret’s cousin Princess Alexandra’s wedding was broadcast, from Wikipedia :
        The wedding ceremony was attended by the royal family and was broadcast worldwide on television, watched by an estimated 200 million people.

    • Addie says:

      Yes, it would have, because Andrew thinks he’s very important. Sarah is just an embarrassment in pretty much any context you care to name, and the daughters, nice though not exactly driven, go along for the very expensive public ride. They clearly think they are entitled too – the carriage ride and 2-day party gives the game away there.

      UK taxpayers have a right to be fed up with this malarkey. They are forced to pay for this silly, useless family, literally bow down to their unelected asses. The Windsors should have the weddings they want as long as they pay for the lot. They have huge amounts of personal wealth because they never spend their own dosh when they can shift costs to the public. Eugenie is not a working royal (an oxymoron if ever there was one), nor is her husband. They are private citizens. Good luck to them, but no-one needs to see them.

    • Jemina says:

      It’s not “allegedly”. Rumours of Eugenie and Jack nearly being engaged were circling in Autumn/Fall 2016 before Harry even put out his statement!
      Sad that They had to wait more than a year for Harry’s wedding/engagement preparations to come together and then announce. They have been together for a number of years, a Summer 2017 wedding would’ve been nice. Everything comes down to rank in the Royal family, which is so unmodern and unprogressive. In everything they do, Will&Kate come first and Harry&Meghan are behind them.

      • aaa says:

        Yeah I think they were set to be engaged when the stories came out about Eugenie moving to Ivy Cottage. It does look like the formal engagement announcement got pushed back.

      • Tina says:

        If there was a delay in Eugenie and Jack’s engagement, I am 99% certain it was due to Beatrice’s breakup with Dave Clark rather than anything to do with Harry.

    • Kerfuffle says:

      The wedding date wasn’t “bumped”, there’s no rule that stated she couldn’t get engaged before Harry (and Eugenie is far enough down the line that she didn’t need to get permission). We saw this with Zara Tindall. But Eugenie (or her parents) want the wedding with all the pomp and circumstance and spotlight, and THAT is why they waited. Harry and Meghan weren’t even close to getting engaged in 2016.

  11. Lala11_7 says:

    This WHOLE THING has turned out to be a thristy, tacky, shambles….

    However, considering the parents of the bride-to-be…

    It is appropriate….

    Too bad Eugenie didn’t have the foresight to PUT HER LITTLE FOOT DOWN and decide to not even TRY to participate in a race…that by BIRTH…she could NEVA, EVA win….

    • Natalie S says:

      Right? Go your own way and don’t just be a reaction to what other people do.

    • HK9 says:

      …and let me say that until I saw this post, I forgot she was even getting married. I wish her well but I thought I’d see the highlights in a Hello magazine spread.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Well that’s it … she’s old enough to have at least attempted to rein in her parents, though we all know how hard it can be to say no, especially if the parents are manipulative.

    • Jemina says:

      So a female member of the Royal family shouldn’t have a lovely wedding in the place she grew up in? Is it only the Princes’ that can have nice weddings?!

      And she is going her own way… the 2nd day of celebration (which is pretty normal) proves it. They’ll be holding a more informal wedding celebration with a fair, drinks, etc. which seems to be the couple’s idea. I’m beginning to think people on here have never been to luxury, creative weddings, where the celebrations last for a couple of days.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She and Beatrice spent a lot of their childhood at young adulthood at Windsor. This is sort of her family church, and the church where most minor royals have gotten married recently (Lady Helen Windsor, Autumn and Peter, Edward and Sophie).

      • Reese says:

        What does her gender have to do with it?
        We are talking about paying 2 million PLUS pounds for security. She is not the heir or the son of the heir. She is not a working royal.
        This could of been scaled back to represent who she is in the BRF. Nobody is denying her a wedding.
        It shouldn’t be up to the taxpayers to cover this extra cost of extravagance simply bc she grew up there.
        As for the narrative she is so inncocent and this isn’t her wedding. Enough. She’s a grown women. She’s just sitting back keeping the peace for her parents. I’ll remember that when she is riding in her carriage. She’s just doing it for Pedo Andy. Right.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Keeping the peace with parents like hers, I don’t envy her. She and Beatrice have done that for years, most of their lives, and still manage to have a close relationship with both their parents and other members of the family who dislike their parents. Navigating family drama is a skill set, royal or not.

        Whether or not it should, her gender matters to some people, just as Anne’s gender mattered to some people back for her first wedding. To some people it matters that Eugenie has the title of princess and that she’s getting married. It may not matter to you, but again, 100,000 people applied for the ticket lottery to be there for the wedding.

        The carriage ride is the same as Edward and Sophie’s, and they were never expected to be working royals. Taxpayers paid that security too. While you may not be interested in this wedding, others are. Those others are the ones lining up for tickets and getting out their bunting. Might annoy the heck out of you, but there are plenty of people who are excited for this wedding.

      • Tina says:

        There wasn’t the same outcry for Edward and Sophie. It was almost 20 years ago, and times were very different, it was an age of expansion (and a free-spending Labour government) rather than an age of austerity. (Edward is also the child of the Sovereign, which Eugenie is not).

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward was not supposed to be a working royal nor was his wife, regardless of whether his parent is the monarch. It was considered the wedding of a minor royal, not a working royal, etc. Wasn’t a big outcry for Autumn and Peter, the taxpayers funding security for the 6,000 strong crowd that showed up for Zara and Mike’s small wedding in Scotland, etc.

      • Tina says:

        Again, those were before the financial crisis and austerity (and Zara didn’t parade anywhere, people showed up because they like her and Mike). The reality of the situation is that people resent the amount spent on the royals and this is an easy example for the press to bang on about because no one likes Andrew and B&E aren’t working royals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        and yet 100,000 people applied for tickets, want to be there, and want a carriage procession. As long as those people exist, the royals play to them. That’s their role so they do it.

    • Karen says:

      Eugenie isnt totally innocent in all the royal princess deserves hype. How people can forget her 25th birthday party where she was Snow White and there were 7 dwarfs. She hired little people to be her minions. That is stomach turning.

      • Natalie S says:

        She did what now?!

        Okay, I just googled this. BS to Eugenie just keeping the peace. She’s obnoxious as well. “Wherever Snow White went, her seven dwarfs dutifully followed.”

      • Tourmaline says:

        Yeah..that was gross. I believe that event was held at Royal Lodge Windsor where her divorced parents live.

      • Dee Kay says:

        Whoa, did not know this. That’s truly terrible.

      • Reese says:

        Agree.
        E is not some darling innocent.
        Some people like to go on and on about how millions love her yet only 100,000 actually applied to watch her. It couldn’t even get aired on the BBC.
        Last time I checked the UK’s pop of 65.6 million vs a mere 100,000.
        I ride the tube with more people than actually want to go and see this women. It’s pathetic.

  12. Ida says:

    I honestly don’t mind. I am eager to see a happy couple getting married. times are so miserable I take these two and their lot on tv any day!

    • Lilly says:

      I’m not British, so how they feel money-wise I can’t argue about – which I read is about 65p per person per year – but @Ida I feel the same. I don’t know why, but weddings are fun for me to watch. Although I won’t stay up all night like for Meghan and Harry, but I’ll be immediately looking up the coverage the next day.

      • Lilly says:

        Actually, I did’t write that that very clearly. I believe that figure was per day, per year. But, it was filed away in my not too reliable data of bits and pieces in my brain from a BBC article.

      • Tina says:

        That 65p figure is complete BS. It includes only the Sovereign Grant at the original 15% of the income from the Crown Estates. It doesn’t include the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster, the cost of security, or the increase in the Sovereign Grant from 15-25% of the income from the Crown Estates.

  13. Hannah Maguire says:

    I’m really surprised. I know that it won’t have the viewing figures one of the lads would have but in our office it’s been the one we have been more excited about.

    • LORENA says:

      Genuinely asking, why is that?

      • Jemina says:

        Same here. It’s a Princess wedding and we haven’t had one for decades! Can’t wait to see her dress. I’ve been rooting for Vivienne Westwood. Eugenie has such a lovely figure – a classic hourglass.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’d like Westwood but I have a terrible feeling it might be Erdem. But we should see Fergie’s tiara which is one of the prettiest in the BRF.

    • Hannah Maguire says:

      I guess just the fashion stakes are much higher!! The bride is “known” to us a lot longer. First Royal bride in forever. Etc.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Millions watched her and her sister grow up. There is affection there, even if it is affection tinged with “why are we watching this” feelings.

  14. Mara says:

    Is it mean to imagine all of their friends thinking ‘ITV on a working weekday morning? How gauche.”

  15. Sage says:

    People raining on her wedding day are miserable. Let her and her family enjoy the big day!

    • Natalie S says:

      Do you want to pay for it because that seems to be the main objection. The Windsor are ridiculously wealthy and could easily pay for all of this. The least they could do is respond to the petition by being transparent about what the public is paying for.

      • caty says:

        That petition was started by a group called “Republic” which wants to abolish the Monarchy, so nope, they are not going to respond to it. And the petition has 28,000 signatures, it needs at least 100,000 for it to be discussed in parliament. And being from a member of a commonwealth country, yep, there is lots of people looking forward to it.

      • Jemina says:

        Uh, they didn’t disclose anything when it came to Harry and Meghan’s wedding, so why would they do it for Eugenie’s? They paid for all aspects of Harry’s wedding except the security. The same will happen for Eugenie’s.

        And where are all the people who said there wouldn’t be a petition for this wedding like there was for Harry’s? Lol, you really don’t know how Republic works. Meghan and Harry’s wedding petition wasn’t racist in nature, it was about public money.

      • Natalie S says:

        My heritage is from a commonwealth country and I loathe when the royals make a visit knowing how much money is being spent by the host country on their trips. No one I know from my home country cares about the royals. I remember Charles and Diana visited when I was a little kid and people were mostly talking about the gossip around those two.

        They don’t have to disclose how much they spent on each item but whether public funds were used for anything more than the actual security bill and I’d love to know how much each day is costing because the carnival makes it a two day event.

        The Queen once tried to use to public funds meant for the poor to heat her palaces. They’ve lost the benefit of the doubt. There needs to be more transparency from the BRF.

        And absolutely there was a racist element to the criticism of Harry and Meghan’s wedding. The criticism was here not just in petitions from anti-monarchy groups. Harry is only sixth in line to the throne but Eugenie is a “blood princess” and should have her special day. Meghan was criticized for not going to a registry office and for having an expensive dress.

    • Beth says:

      I’d want the couple to have a happy wedding day, but I sure wouldn’t want to pay for it. She’s not very high in the BRF, she’ll never be queen, people really aren’t interested in her, so why should taxpayers have to spend millions on her wedding?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Taxpayers pay security not for the wedding itself. Just as they did for Peter and Autumn, Edward and Sophie, etc. and other members of the BRF who are lower down in the succession than Eugenie.

  16. caty says:

    That petition of which you speak was started by a republican group that dislike all things royal. And as for Charles and his plans for a slimmed down Monarchy, you have to look at the actual numbers of patronages/engagements the current lot commit to. The Queen still has over 300 engagements a year, and do not forget how many the rest of the royal family do, even Eugenie and Beatrice step in and do “represent” without “officially” being working royals. My point is that a Monarchy that only has Charles, Camilla, and the two Dukes and their wives doing the bulk of engagements, which is upward of 3500 is not realistic considering how William and Kate do what they do now reluctantly. I mean even Andrew is up there with 340 engagements in 2017, right after Charles and Anne. Many in the UK and in the commonwealth do not begrudge Andrew for wanting his daughter’s day to be special and deserving.

    • Addie says:

      Charles and sons have said going forward they won’t be doing the kind of numbers racked up by the Queen and many of her cousins etc as well as her children. That’s what they mean by slimmed down monarchy, though I imagine they’ll want the same or more money from the public. Charles wanted to have the Duchy of Cornwall – a publicly owned entity – transferred over the his family. Thankfully it was rejected. But he’ll try again, the greedy pig. The intention of Charles and the boys is to pick a few charities along the Heads Together idea – lots of PR-type things but not too many engagements. The sons don’t like doing royal work so this is the compromise. Look, the only genuine constitutional role is the one for the monarch and involves governmental work. The charity stuff only came about with George V who knew for the monarchy to survive they needed to be seen, so attending charity events, meeting people who do the actual charity work was born. It’s an invention of the royals for the royals to keep themselves relevant and to keep them in public money. The younger royals are intent on becoming celebrities but real celebrities also sponsor charity work but they do it for free. A much better deal all round. As for Eugenie, why should the public have to pay upwards of £2M for her wedding when her family can well afford to pay for whatever she wants? There’s better things the public can spend their taxes on. Same for Harry’s wedding, the costs of which have been released as £32M. People of the UK and Commonwealth no doubt wish them all well in their lives, but they are a financial burden with inadequate return to the public. Walkabouts and meet-and-greets are not worth much. Eugenie and sister filling in here and there counts for nothing in the scheme of things. Sure, they want to be on the gravy train – it beats the slog of real work – but none of it is needed. And taxes can go to better purposes like NHS, education etc.

      • Muffy says:

        I think you would be surprised at the amount of money paid to celebrities to do charity work. Appearance fees, the cost to put them and their handlers up in a hotel, social media promotion—a lot of it is paid.

    • Jemina says:

      I agree. It seems like Americans are the ones “not interested” but they don’t count when it comes to the Royal family. Most Brits are indifferent to the wedding, just like they were for Harry’s wedding, but a lot of people still want to see this live.
      I want to see their happy faces and positive body language because they looked so damn glum during Harry’s ceremony. Don’t know what that was about. Hardly anybody cracked a smile on his side! They were very different during William’s wedding, so I think this one will be different. Hopefully, they’ll do a family group shot on the steps with everyone’s happy, smiley faces.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Charles and Anne regularly do 500+ engagements a year. If all working royals did that number, they could cover between 3000-3500 annually.

      “The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of the year, and making it look like they work hard.”
      - Mark Bolland, former press staffer for Prince Charles

    • Emma says:

      Well, that’s how the other royal families in Europe operate – a slim monarchy. In countries like Spain, the Netherlands etc the only working royals are the King & Queen and the Crown Prince & Crown Princess. Occasionally the other Princes and Princesses will do engagements, but certainly not a very visible role, and their children won’t be working royals at all.

      It’s only the British RF who insist on keeping all these relatives on the dole. If Will & Kate and Harry & Meghan are committed, they will be able to cover the necessary engagements even after Charles becomes king. Whether they will actually grow up and start doing a full week schedule remains to be seen.

      • aaa says:

        It varies, some large countries have the monarch and consort doing the bulk of royal work but then there are smaller countries that have the monarch couple, heir couple and spare couple(s) sharing the royal work load.

      • notasugarhere says:

        In those countries the spare and spouse often have outside work while doing engagements on the side. Joachim of Denmark has an outside job, he bought their house, and they have no nanny for their kids. They do engagements but not as full-time funded royals.

        In Sweden, plenty of outcry to throw out the younger ones, CP and his p0rn model wife. Those two also have outside “work” if you count him promoting designs stolen from other people and her outside “business” of being a “consultant”. Many political parties calling for elimination of funding for anyone except monarch and heir.

  17. Janet says:

    I absolutely love how ridiculous this all is! I hope there are a series of truly astounding incidents that give us gossip material for years to come. I hope Princess Michael shows up and says something incredibly racist to Prince Philip loud enough for all to hear and scowl at them. I hope Fergie is TRASHED by the time she shows up and accidentally flashes a previously unknown tattoo of The Queen. I hope Andrew has a meltdown and is still sniffing back snot as he walks Eugenie down the aisle. Omg, and you know Beatrice will be a bridesmaid a la Pippa Middleton, and I hope she wears something outrageously ill-suited to her. Omg, I am so hopeful!

  18. Pandy says:

    Well, Eugenie must have gone along with the televising idea or it wouldn’t have happened. How embarrassing.

  19. Lala11_7 says:

    I will say this…regarding the broadcasts for Meghan & Harry’s wedding…I THANKED THE GAWDS that ABC Network decided to spend the money and broadcast the wedding…because we were switching between BBC America and the ABC broadcast…and the difference between the picture quality…was ASTOUNDING!!!! Seriously…it was like watching a B/W movie…versus TECHNICOLOR CINEMASCOPE!

  20. Other Renee says:

    Every time I read about Andrew, I think about a story I read recently wherein Andrew walked into a room and everyone ignored him and no one got up (as per protocol they may have been expected to do). So he haughtily announced, “Let’s try this again, shall we?” and walked out of the room to make another entrance. I don’t remember anything beyond that. I hope that once again no one got up. It gives me the giggles. He is such a total tool.

    • MavenTheFirst says:

      I wonder what he would have done if nothing happened a second time too. Send them to the Tower?

  21. Mia4s says:

    Eh, I’ll catch the highlights on YouTube…next time I’m stuck in an airport…provided the wifi is free.

    Look I hope she has a lovely wedding but she is not and never will be a full working royal. The public barely tolerated what is spent now and there is ZERO need for more. Just relax into a privileged life, enjoy your knee husband and get a grip.

    Oh dear god what if she and Meghan get pregnant at the same time? Oh. The. Drama.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Edward and Sophie weren’t supposed to be working royals at the time they married in 1999. They had a wedding at Windsor, had a ticket raffle for the crowd, a carriage ride, and taxpayers paid security. Autumn and Peter married at Windsor too, and he’s never been a working royal.

      • Tina says:

        Marrying at Windsor is fine. This ridiculous carriage ride isn’t, in this day and age.

      • Reese says:

        To compare the Windsor weddings:
        1. Edward SON of the monarch.
        2. E is the granddaughter of the monarch.
        She should get a lottery and a carriage ride that cost taxpayers 2 million plus pounds bc the son of the monarch did?
        How much extra security did Peter and Autums wedding cost the taxpayers? Right. Not 2 millions plus pounds bc they didn’t have the same extravagance as E.
        How are any of these comparable?!?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Edward was considered a minor royal and never to be a working royal, just like Eugenie. Surplus to requirement. And still the wedding was televised, 200 million watched, 8000 showed up for tickets, carriage ride, etc.

        The taxpayers paid security for all the royal weddings at Windsor and the smaller ones like Zara’s. What seems to be the problem here is the York association, for which Eugenie is not responsible. Her parents are her parents, as nutty and chaotic as they are.

        If no one had applied for the tickets, the Yorks would have fallen on their faces and there would be no carriage ride or crowd. Turns out, 100,000 people wanted to attend and 6,000 were given tickets. So the royal show goes on, a royal show millions still welcome.

        Feel free to get a RepublicUK flag and stand out on the streets of Windsor protesting, you’re welcome to do so.

      • Reese says:

        Never actually answer the facts:
        1. Edward. Son of the monarch
        2. E. Granddaughter of the monarch
        They can’t be compared. They are not equal. Not my rules. Take it up with the BRF.
        Comparable would be Peter and Autumn’s wedding at Windsor. Which cost the taxpayers how much? Hmmm.
        So a wedding at Windsor can happen and still be scaled back to adequately represent who E is to the BRF. It’s be done before. That’s your comparison.
        100,000 people applied to see the BRF Not E. nobody would show up her HER and only her.
        100,000 people? Wow. The public has spoken. I mean what is that? .0015 of the pop? A higher percent of the pop just ordered a kebab in the last 5 mins than want to go to this wedding.

      • aaa says:

        What trumps all is that Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch and this is the wedding that she wants to give her granddaughter.

      • Tina says:

        It certainly does not trump all. We do not live in an absolute monarchy. Theresa May made some idiotic statements about how police cuts haven’t contributed to the rise in crime, for which she was rightly ridiculed. All it would take is for one Daily Mail commentator to combine this with Eugenie’s carriage ride security costs, and people would be even more up in arms than they are already.

      • aaa says:

        OK I will amend my statement:

        What trumps all is that Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch and this is the wedding that she wants to give her granddaughter. The Queen is answerable to the government and thus far the criticisms of the wedding have gotten no where near the point where the government sees fit to get involved beyond the usual suspects who take shots at everything the royals do.

        It is very unlikely that the government will get involved at this point, and if they do my prediction is that the politician(s) (unless it is one from the usual suspects crew) will be ridiculed as a johnny come lately trying to use the BRF to get his/her/their name(s) in the media.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Reese they can be compared because Edward was the youngest, private, not-expected-to-work child of the monarch. A minor royal not a working royal, just like Eugenie.

        Anne’s husbands weren’t working royals. Edward and Sophie weren’t expected to be. Their wedding was very much a “finally, maybe this marriage will last, let them go to private life” kind of affair. And yet it was televised in full because the people of the country wanted it to be.

        You keep stating that people are showing up to see the royals not Beatrice, but fact is they didn’t show up for Peter and Autumn or Zara and Mike in as big of numbers. 100,000 proved they want to show up for Eugenie’s wedding. Eugenie’s. When they didn’t show up at other wedding opportunities to see royals.

        Whether you like it or not, there are millions who have affection for Beatrice and Eugenie, the little York Princesses. They’re showing up for Eugenie when they didn’t show up for Peter or Zara. That’s fact.

        As long as people keep showing up to see the carriage parades, the royals provide the carriage parades. If you don’t like it, go in person to protest.

      • Tina says:

        If 100,000 people physically show up in Windsor on 12 October to watch Eugenie’s wedding, I will film myself eating a hat on YouTube and post the link here.

  22. Chaine says:

    I want her to walk down the aisle wearing those goggles.

  23. Sayrah says:

    I want to watch it 🤷🏻‍♀️

  24. Betsy says:

    For almost no reason at al, I find both of the York girls painfully annoying. I wish them to figuratively go away.

  25. ladida says:

    Personally, I love all weddings and wedding-themed shows so no complaints here. As far as taxpaying, this is no worse than paying for Melania’s trips to Trump tower.

    That said, Eugenie doesn’t know her place. While other royals have married at Windsor with a crowd and carriage, she is by far the lesser royal. Zara is more comparable to her and she had a low key wedding. Peter Phillips was the Queen’s first-born grandchild so that’s different. Edward was in direct-line, and so is Harry, obviously.

    • aaa says:

      Zara’s wedding was not a low-key wedding.

      • Stephanie Hawkins says:

        Your right zara wedding security cost 500k damn pounds who knows what that is in todays money with inflation. Dumb to think zara or her mother paid for that themselves

      • notasugarhere says:

        And Eugenie didn’t kick another bride and groom out of their year-long reservation for the church on that particular date.

  26. Melania says:

    This is becoming a ciecus.

  27. Fluffy Princess says:

    I am only wanting to see the wedding dress AND Beatrice’s dress. They both have the WORST fashion sense–ever. They both looked absolutely AWFUL at Harry’s wedding. One with the light blue 60′s flight attendant dress complete w/ pill box hat, and the other in that ghastly, heavy looking teal dress that was so wrong for a morning, spring wedding. I swear that with those two– all their taste is in their mouth.

    • L84Tea says:

      I agree with you. I think both of them have miserable taste in fashion, particularly Beatrice.

  28. Sara says:

    Good grief, I thought she was touring a nuclear plant when I saw these glasses! Then I realized they were on pourpose! Who told her those were cool??? She is obviously surrounded by yes people…

  29. Lulu says:

    If Eugenie and Beatrice are super gorgeous and very much the ideal princess beauty, I bet some of you would not ridicule them so much. People would not admit it but they immediately hate the Yorks sisters because they look ugly for them thus immediately associating them like cinderella’s evil sisters.