Princess Eugenie is engaged to her long-time boyfriend Jack Brooksbank

V&A Summer Party

Between the two York princesses, I often feel like Eugenie might be the more “together” sister. Beatrice – the older sister – seems to flit between jobs and vacations and she just doesn’t seem to know where she should be going or what she should be doing. Maybe Eugenie is the same way, but it just seems like Eugenie is more focused. She lived in New York for a time, where she worked for an art auction house, but she moved back to London in 2016, where she took up another full-time job at an art gallery.

It was said, at the time, that Eugenie was keen to move back to London because she wanted to spend more time with her boyfriend Jack Brooksbank. They’ve been dating since she was 21 – she’s 27 now – and they did the long distance thing, and now they’re more settled since they’re in the same city. So… not so surprisingly, Eugenie and Jack are now engaged! It was just announced this morning.

Just months after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement was announced, another royal is preparing to tie the knot. Princess Eugenie, the daughter of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, is engaged to her longtime boyfriend, Jack Brooksbank, Buckingham Palace announced this morning.
Princess Eugenie, 27, the granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth, became engaged to Brooksbank earlier this month in Nicaragua, according to the palace.

“The Duke and Duchess of York are delighted to announce the engagement of Princess Eugenie to Mr Jack Brooksbank,” according to a statement issued by Buckingham Palace.

The autumn 2018 wedding of Eugenie and Brooksbank will continue an exciting year for the royal family. Harry and Markle are scheduled to wed in May, and Prince William and Princess Kate are due to give birth to their third child in April. Eugenie and Brooksbank’s wedding will take place at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, the same location of Harry and Markle’s May 19, 2018, wedding.

[From ABC News]

I’m a bit surprised that Eugenie wanted a Windsor Castle wedding too? You would think that she would want a splashier London wedding, so she could get a carriage and all of that. Maybe that’s truly not her style though. As for Jack…he manages the London nightclub Mahiki, he’s friends with Prince Harry – Harry is reportedly very close to both York princesses – and he’s 31 years old. He’s well-educated and it’s clear he runs in the same posh/aristo/moneyed circles as the royals. His dream is apparently to open up his own nightclub chain. We’ll see.

Also: they got engaged in Nicaragua?!?! I would love to know the backstory on that.

The wedding of Pippa Middleton and James Matthews

Update: Buckingham Palace released Eugenie and Jack’s engagement portraits! Very cute.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

266 Responses to “Princess Eugenie is engaged to her long-time boyfriend Jack Brooksbank”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lilly says:

    Awwww. Congratulations you two.

  2. Alexandria says:

    Happy for her and wishing them a beautiful life ahead. His hair makes him look older than 31. Me thinks a close shave would make him look better. Anyway congratulations!

    • Chaine says:

      I cannot believe he’s only 31! He has got quite a … mature appearance and dress sense… she looks quite happy and will be a lovely bride, I’m sure.

    • Pandy says:

      Oh wow, I was just coming on to ask how old he is as he looks more like 41. Yikes.

    • RedWeatherTiger says:

      Yep. He looks quite a lot older than she…in that top pic, he could be related to George W. Bush. Ooosh.

      Wishing all good things for them, though…they seem happy, and she looks quite lovely and joyful in their engagement photo.

    • Addison says:

      With more hair he looks older. The engagement picture seems like a closer shave and he looks his age.

      As far as the venue she may have always wanted that all along. I don’t think males go around thinking about which palace/church will be used for their nuptials.

    • Liberty says:

      I am happy for her, but honest to god, those look like pictures of three different men to me.

      • RedWeatherTiger says:

        HA! It’s true. He gets younger and cuter with each successive photograph. 🙂

      • Addison says:

        Maybe that’s what she likes about him. It’s like he’s multiple men but she is not cheating!!! 🙂

  3. WendyNerd says:

    Good for her! He looks a little like Colin Firth.

    • Tanguerita says:

      he gives me strong Cumberbatch’s vibes in some pictures. I guess, just another posh British dude.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Yeah, I happy for Eugenie. She shares a name with one of my favorite people in my life, and that oddly makes me smile when I see her name. Only my fave pronounces it as the French do.
      She is my preferred Yorkie.

      • Kelly says:

        I prefer her, too. She seems like the more mature older sister, rather than the younger.

      • Enough Already says:

        Agree. I’ve always liked her more. Poor Bea lol. Apparently she’s the only cousin William doesn’t get along with. Harry, of course, gets along with everyone 🙂

      • Lorelai says:

        @MagnoliaRose, her name is special to me, too! : )

        @EnoughAlready, I need the gossip on why William doesn’t get along with Beatrice!

      • Enough Already says:

        Loralai
        We don’t know, concretely, but it’s been reported that William hates Bea’s ex Dave Clark, Bea isn’t as easy to get along with as Eugenie and lastly Bea feels like her father is right and she should have as much spotlight as Will and Kate.

        Even if these were a tiny bit true it would certainly ainly strain the relationship between William and Beatrice.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kate Middleton bullying Beatrice being forgotten again? I’ve never heard either of the York sisters being described as anything other than polite and gracious.

        I doubt those tidbits as William was said to introduce them. Supposed rumor was he didn’t like Dave because he perceives him as a social climbing user. Has he looked at his in-laws lately?

        I think William would have no problem with Beatrice being a working royal, someone else to do the work he-and-wife refuse to do. It is Charles and his life-long jealousy of Andrew that drives some of these decisions IMO.

        Beatrice is required to live in the UK, as she will likely be a Counsellor of State for the reigns of Charles and William. Why not have her do royal engagements, since her life is going to be artificially limited by a behind-the-scenes royal role for twenty years anyway?

  4. KP says:

    I thought it was weird she was using the same location for the wedding too… But would she even have the option of a splashy London wedding? She’s waaay down the line now.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t think she’d get a big London wedding. Windsor is where they tend to have the more “family” weddings, like Peter and Autumn.

    • whatever says:

      Windsor Castle is a popular choice for minor royals wanting to marry in England. It’s not a weird choice at all.

      • KP says:

        I didn’t think it was weird. Just that she’d chose the same location months after her cousins wedding. I don’t guess there are a ton of other options for someone in her position though?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Windsor is really is the only logical choice, unless they were going to go with a small wedding in Scotland like Zara and Mike did, or an even smaller one at Sandringham.

        Even though Eugenie isn’t a “working royal” the police are still going to have to deal with securing the area because of all the other royals who will attend, as they did with Peter and Autumn’s wedding. Easier to do crowd control and security at Windsor than a random church elsewhere.

      • LAK says:

        Nota: Zara’s wedding is one of the best slight of hands played by Anne’s kids in the ongoing game to appear as though they don’t partake of royal privilege.

        Church ceremony somewhere that looks modest, lots of tv cameras to record the modesty of occasion.

        No Cameras and gloss over the fact that the reception and party were held at Holyrood Palace, The Queen’s official residence in Scotland.

      • spidee!! says:

        Well they would hardly have their reception at Macdonalds! And security would probably be easier at Holyrood.

      • LAK says:

        Spidee: Not disagreeing you, but not the point i was making.

      • Va Va Kaboom says:

        Are Anne’s kids really that savvy at appearing to abstain from the perks or is it the public’s lack of interest that truly allows them to stay under the radar? Because there have been instances, like Philip’s “charity” birthday party for the Queen, when even a cursory glance at their actions by the press immediately brings criticism from all sides.

      • Imqrious2 says:

        Isn’t it also for greater ease for TQ and PP, who are living near there most of the time now?

      • LAK says:

        Va va boom: i think it’s a mixture of all the reasons you’ve listed. Helped along by the public assumption that Anne’s lack of ostentatious displays means she and her family don’t partake of the royal perks.

        When they do something that shows they are indeed partaking, it’s glossed over by the public as a one-off aberration because the public doesn’t pay attention to them.

        It’s a trick where something is in plain sight, but the public doesn’t see it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, they could have had the wedding at Crathie Kirk (the one the BRF use when at Balmoral) and reception at the private residence of Balmoral. Chose to partake of the government-owned property instead.

        Plus another couple who already had Canongate Kirk booked were “encouraged” to give up their reservation so Zara and Mike could have that date…

      • Bridget says:

        @Va Va: Zara has settled down a LOT. She used to be a lot higher profile in her younger days.

      • Lorelai says:

        @LAK: Do you think Eugenie’s would be televised, if Zara’s was?

      • Lorelai says:

        @Va Va Kaboom: I’m an American, so I obviously can’t speak to how the Brits feel, but I absolutely think it is the lack of public interest.

        I know that members of other royal families are often brought up here as examples (most recently as a defense to negative comments about Meghan “giving up her career,” etc.), but I don’t ever find them to be effective or relevant because the reality is that most people only know and care much about the BRF. That’s where the money is to be made so they’re the ones who will be covered.

        You’re never going to see, for example, Maxima or Mary on the cover of People magazine. Only the most hard-core royal watchers even know which countries *have* monarchies. And only members of the British royal family are household names.

        Similarly, with Anne’s kids…from my experience, most people (again, Americans) don’t even know who they are. The only ones who have ever generated worldwide interest in our generation are Charles, Diana, William and Harry (and now Kate and Meghan, and the kids).

      • Megan says:

        Windsor is beautiful and convenient to London. I think it makes perfect sense for Harry and Eugenie to both chose it as their wedding site. The only problem for Eugenie are the inevitable comparisons. She doesn’t have the spending power of the Duchy of Cornwall.

      • LAK says:

        Lorelai: Zara’s wedding being televised was unusual. I think it was televised because WK’s marriage revitalised interest in the family. Not WK themselves or their actual wedding, but the idea that the family had become so egalitarian that they had allowed a middle class gal to join their ranks and it reflected well on them. There was peak media / public interest in the family, even the minor ranked ones, that year.

        Plus Zara was marrying a world renown sportsman so it could be spun that way too.

      • Tina says:

        And also Zara has a high public profile as a sportswoman in her own right. She won the Eventing World Championship in 2006 and was voted BBC Sports Personality of the Year that year (it was a slow year sports-wise, not to rag on Zara but we have much more globally successful winners like Andy Murray and Lewis Hamilton now). She won a silver medal at the 2012 Olympics. She has been very successful.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes she did silver, but I doubt her position as Queen’s granddaughter had *nothing* to do with her selection. Eventing team membership is by selection, not straight across the board numbers. Queen’s granddaughter in the London Olympics was good for Olympic PR.

      • Tina says:

        Sure, but she wasn’t individual world eventing champion in 2006 for nothing. Zara is very talented. She’s certainly had a leg up in terms of her money and family access to good horses, but that doesn’t get you an individual world championship on their own.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m not saying she isn’t talented. A talent that has been nurtured with plenty of money and quietly living off her royal mother most of her life. The Olympics selection deserves a side-eye, as it wasn’t solely merit based. She performed well at the Olympics, but she was there in large part because she was the Queen’s granddaughter.

    • spidee!! says:

      LAK – not fighting with you but what would you have liked to have seen her do?

      • LAK says:

        The family isn’t lacking in private secured spaces to hold weddings eg Gatcombe Park, Balmoral or Sandrigham.

        To be clear, i’m railing against the public perception that the Philips children do not dip a toe in their royal privilege and therefore the Yorkies should not.

        They all do it.

      • Enough Already says:

        Zara and Peter also have family compounds on Anne’s estate, taking advantage of the sum total of all of her security and upgrades.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Plus they stay at Anne’s space at St James Palace when in London.

      • Tia says:

        I’m fairly sure that in the U.K. you can only have a wedding somewhere licensed for weddings and it has to be available to the public if they apply to have their wedding there – it’s why Charles and Camilla’s wedding was moved at the last minute.

        Therefore if they’d used a private secured space, it would immediately have stopped being so.

      • LAK says:

        Tia: The 2 churches adjacent to Balmoral and Sandrigham that are frequented by the royals are public spaces. Anyone can attend them and or hold their weddings there.

        Anne’s second marriage ceremony was held at the church near Balmoral.

      • magnoliarose says:

        LAK has a soft spot for the Yorkies, and it has rubbed off on me!
        I think your point LAK is that they get criticized for doing the same things others do. They really do get thrown under the bus too much, but I think their parents are at fault.
        I don’t see why she shouldn’t have a royal wedding. She is a Princess by birth, and if it were me, I would want it for my special day too.

    • ELX says:

      They aren’t closing streets and paying out taxpayer pounds for carriages and Westminster Abbey.

      • Princessk says:

        Meghan will get a carriage and Eugenie will get a carriage and some streets in Windsor WILL be closed off.

    • RoyalSparkle says:

      Congratulations!

      But, why announced now – with Prince Henry Sparkle’s wedding …
      This is not similar to a pregnancy – Zara Tindall’s with child.

  5. Citresse says:

    Congratulations! Beautiful ring, lovely engagement photo.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Is it a great photo!

    • Katydid04 says:

      Beautiful photo!

    • Alexandria says:

      Agreed, beautiful and lovely engagement photo of them.

    • Tourmaline says:

      It is adorable, I love her dress and the unusual ring. I saw somewhere a comparison to her mothers engagement ring and it is similar in shape (although Fergie’s was a ruby stone).

      • Alix says:

        Where’s a closeup of the ring?

      • Lady D says:

        I just checked the Daily Mail, Alix. They have a close-up picture of her ring and it’s a very pretty one.

      • Lorelai says:

        @Lady D, thank you! I also wanted to see a closeup of the ring and I think it is absolutely stunning.

        I find it hilarious that the DM calls her “thrifty” for wearing a $4700+ dress two times 😂

      • Veronica says:

        I like the engagement pictures a lot more than Harry and Meghan’s. And if anyone thinks she didn’t pick a recycled dress that is less than 2000 euros on purpose, they don’t know PR. She was smart here, especially in contrast to Meghan’s 56000 euro “braless” gown, as the Daily Mail just reminded us.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Unlikely she paid anywhere near the guessed-at price for the dress, as has been discussed frequently on here by people who are in the fashion industry. Despite all the fuss, the top of the gown is not see-through. It is obviously lined and she would have been wearing lingerie underneath.

        Eugenie’s Erdem dress was featured in her Harper’s interview and not listed in the details as being hers. Other items in the shoot that she did own personally were distinguished from things provided for the shoot. She may have purchased it at a discount afterwards (as she is free to do), but at the time of the shoot it wasn’t “hers”. It was listed at $5,175 in the notes.

      • Aurelia says:

        The ring will be a rare sapphire called a padaradasha . its no normal pink sapphire. Yes, the setting does look like batshit fergies.

  6. minx says:

    He’s 31? Looks a lot older. She’s a cute girl, congrats.

  7. Bellagio DuPont says:

    Ooohhh…..I love her engagement picture….very pretty. Actually, I’ve been enjoying her general look for a while now. Congrats to her, she looks really happy. 🙂

  8. notasugarhere says:

    I wonder if they’ll have Ivy Cottage at KP as their London base? We heard she was moving in pending issues around repairs, but did we ever hear if she really did move in?

    • Enough Already says:

      Quite shameful that Andrew doesn’t want to fork over the money for the repairs. It’s reportedly only a few thousand pounds. He could have at least done it as an engagement gift to his daughter. Actually, Eugenie and her fiance are not exactly poor…

      • L84Tea says:

        Andrew always seems like such a grumpy cold fish to me!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Why should Andrew pay to fix up government-owned property? When you sign a rental agreement, you aren’t responsible for fixing up the property – the property owner is.

      • Enough Already says:

        Nota
        You’re right but I think as a father Andrew is letting pocket change delay his daughter’s plans. She and Jack wanted to move in last year. For everything Andrew has been given and/or stolen I think it would be a very small price to pay. He is greedy and petty.

      • Lady D says:

        I was going to say the same thing. It is a minor amount of money for someone who has literally been handed millions of taxpayers dollars his whole life.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Beatrice and Eugenie will benefit from Andrew’s pre-paid lease on Royal Lodge Windsor. They inherit that lease and can live in that property rent-free through 2078. That is where Andrew really pulled the fast one on people with HM’s help. Edward didn’t get anything close to that deal.

        For Ivy Cottage? I’m not blaming Andrew on this one. From what I remember it was potential flood damage and mold. The renter is not on the hook for those things, as the property manager is required to keep the property in good and safe order.

      • Enough Already says:

        Nota
        Correct, it was water damage. Again, legally you are correct but if I were Air Miles Andy I would do it to make my child happy. When he traveling in luxury and finessing lucrative private financial deals on the taxpayer’s dime he had no problems with legalities.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And again. If anyone else was moving in there, the landlord would be required to pay for the fix. Eugenie has the money to pay for the fix herself, so it isn’t about keeping her “happy”. It is about the legalities of the situation. No matter if people like Andrew or not, enough with Eugenie being punished for her parents issues.

        She’s the renter, the landlord is responsible for fixing the property. Begin as you mean to go on, as I expect her to live in Ivy Cottage for a long time to come. If there is any other structural trouble in the future, the landlord is responsible for the fixes not the renter.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Andrew is a horrible human being full stop. This is the least of his crimes. I heard Eugenie isn’t fond of him either.

      • Enough Already says:

        Nota
        I’m not sure where you got Eugenie being punished for Andrew’s crimes out of my statement. I’m saying the opposite. Andrew’s egregious sins should make him want to foot the bill instead of haggling. Eugenie so wanted to be installed there by now. It’s not even that the landlord won’t pay exactly. He doesn’t want to pay anytime soon. To cut costs they make all similar repairs/renovations at the same time. They feel if Andrew wants it done right away he should pay for it. I don’t know why Eugenie doesn’t just get a lawyer and let him sort it out. Landlords can’t force you to live with mold, if there is indeed mold.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You are right. He is shameful btw.
        Who would allow their daughter to live in a situation that could put her health at risk when all she wants to live near her family and be part of the fold.
        He should pay. But he won’t.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No Andrew shouldn’t pay, nor should Eugenie. You’re shaming Andrew via Eugenie. If it was just about money, Eugenie could have paid her own personal funds to fix it.

        She is smart enough to recognize that as the future renter, she isn’t responsible for fixing the mold problem. If she started out her lease on that foot, she wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in the future when it comes to other necessary repairs. Begin as you mean to go on.

        Whatever Andrew has done does not matter in regards to the rental of Ivy Cottage. If anyone else was moving in there, the landlord would be responsible for fixing it up.

        You’re insisting Andrew atone for his sins by fixing up property that will never belong to him or his daughter. I don’t recall Charles paying $7 million in personal funds to fix up Apartment 1A, and goodness knows plenty of people think Charles is the worst sinner on the planet.

      • bluhare says:

        While I take your point about not paying for structural repairs, I also think that Andrew could have lobbied mummy to fast track those repairs. I’m surprised he hasn’t.

      • Enough Already says:

        Nota
        Stop with the false equivalencies. I’ve never insisted Andrew has any legal obligation to pay and I expressly (and repeatedly) concurred with you about the responsibility for the repairs. As for shaming Andrew via Eugenie – lol, I don’t need her to shame that reprehensible man every chance I get. So yeah. Done with it.

      • AmandaPanda says:

        Please – stop with the “she’s the tenant” stuff. If she doesn’t want to pay I’ll take the lease on and pay. Any interest fromKP? No? Wonder why not

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes you are, by insisting that Andrew pay for it because of all the things he’s done that you think are wrong (and I think are wrong too BTW). She is the future tenant not the landlord, so she is not responsible for paying for repairs. I doubt any of the royal staff and other non-royal tenants at KP pay for their own repairs on the apartments they lease there, so Eugenie shouldn’t either.

    • Cirien says:

      I wonder if they’ll be able to use some of the money (£45 million) that Fergie managed to sue Murdoch for?

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Cirien:

        How is it possible she successfully squeezed that sort of amount from Murdoch and still isnt in the clear financially??!

        What on earth is going on with her? I mean, does she throw raw bundles of cash in her fireplace rather than wood or what? 😦😦

      • Tourmaline says:

        Shes suing him for that- she hasn’t actually gotten a dime! And I bet she won’t.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        Ahhhh…..ok….makes a bit more sense now.

        And you’re right……hyper-ruthless people like Murdoch rarely ever lose because they’re always willing to go the extra mile or more beyond decency in order to win.

        Good luck to her though.

      • bluhare says:

        I bet someone has a rather large overdraft at Coutts right now.

      • Em says:

        Nothing will come of the law suit because it would have to go to court and lord knows what skeletons would fall out of the closet with the subpoena’s. Andy was up to his neck in her scam. She is just hoping Murdock will settle a million or two out of court……Dream on Red.

  9. Maria F. says:

    two Royal weddings in one year!! Love it.

  10. Rapunzel says:

    St. George’s Chapel is gorgeous. I’m not surprised Eugenie wants her wedding there too. IDK why folks are acting like that’s a big deal?

  11. Merritt says:

    Congrats to Eugenie and Jack. I’m not a fan of the ring.

  12. BearcatLawyer says:

    It is much nicer to have a wedding outside of London (fewer crowds of tourists, less traffic), and Windsor is a pretty area. William did not have a choice as heir; only places like Westminster Abbey or St. Paul’s Cathedral in London could handle a wedding of that size. Congrats to them both. They seem well-matched and happy.

    Nicaragua apparently is trying to build up its appeal as a tourist destination by touting its volcanoes. They can afford the security necessary to make such a trip reasonably safely. Based on what my clients have told me though, I will not be visiting anytime soon!

  13. L84Tea says:

    Good for her on her engagement. As for the location, someone please correct me if I am wrong, isn’t she considered a “minor” royal, even with the princess title? I always thought minor royals didn’t necessarily get the big splashy weddings with the carriage pulling them in the streets for crowds. But I might be wrong because I’m comparing this to Ann’s kids’ weddings, which were nowhere near as visible as William’s. I wasn’t sure if that had to do with their standing in the line or with the fact that Ann’s kids seem to like blending into the background like their mother.

    If anyone knows, please enlighten me!

    • Enough Already says:

      A big splashy wedding with hundreds of thousands in security costs for a non-working royal would be problematic. There would be no way to justify it.

      • L84Tea says:

        Yep, that’s what I thought.

      • Enough Already says:

        Inthekitchen
        I’m talking about Westminster. The op was talking about a bigger, splashier wedding with carriages etc. i was explaining why St. George’s Chapel is more appropriate. Not sure how this ended up posting here lol.

    • inthekitchen says:

      One of Anne’s kids (Peter) had his wedding at this exact location (and sold his photos to a tabloid mag) so not sure how that is considered more appropriate or less splashy than Eug having her wedding there.

    • RoyalSparkle says:

      I agree. But a minor ‘York’ could become major, if HM out live The POW.

  14. FLORC says:

    Love the portrait styling! They look really cute together

  15. Va Va Kaboom says:

    Congratulations to them both! I really like their engagement photo. For some reason it seems like a truer representation of the couple themselves than a lot of other Royal Engagement photos. Maybe it’s the fairly subtle way Eugenia’s art background is displayed. Her dress really compliments the decor of the room, especially the colors of the painting on our left. Sorry, way over thinking it lol

    • Princessk says:

      Yes, the engagement photo is lovely. The dress looks great on her, and he has complemented her look with his red tie, which beautifully brings out the colours of her dress.

    • Bellagio DuPont says:

      Yes, @ Vavavoom,

      I don’t think you’re overthinking it, i totally agree with you. I was just thinking, the way it’s been styled, it could quite easily be turned into a really pretty oil painting in itself.

      The best royal engagement picture I’ve seen so far, in my opinion. 👍👍

    • Veronica says:

      I agree, and I think she was super smart in re-wearing a dress that was less than 2000 euros. Good PR, as opposed to whomever was advising harry and Meghan.

  16. Sage says:

    Love the photos but not the ring. Sarah must be so happy!!!

    • bluhare says:

      She went a bit bonkers on Twitter today. Something about joyful rivers and rocks. Or something. There were several like that.

      • Nic919 says:

        Sarah is going to be the loose cannon with the wedding planning. I feel for Eugenie because I don’t think Sarah will be contained.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ NIC 919

        Lol…..It’s her daughters wedding. I can’t wait to see how this shakes out.

        Release the Kraken. 😀

  17. Samira says:

    Congrats to Eugenie and Jack. I had a feeling we would get a second Windsor engagement this year.

  18. Who ARE These People? says:

    It’s nice to see engagement photos in which both partners look equally happy, and in this case, where the man seems even more delighted.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      I was coming on to say the same thing-she looks happy, but he is glowing! Congrats!

    • Enough Already says:

      I’m not touching this one.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Not sure why it can’t be touched. There’s such a longstanding myth about how it’s women who have to be more thrilled to “finally get the ring” or “cunningly trap a man” and so on, that some of us (maybe it’s my older age) are sensitized to that dynamic and very pleased with any image that counters that mythology. We’ve had 2 very public engagements out of England in recent weeks and in both cases the men’s images – which are highly scrutinized – speak of free will, delight, and admiration. When Prince William became engaged, the narrative was somewhat different and it stays different.

      • Nic919 says:

        Maybe the issue is with William and not the other guys.

      • Jini says:

        Can we please get off the narrative that William didn’t want to marry Kate? Whatever their relationship was or is, Will was no Charles forced down the aisle (and even that story is a stretch for Charles). He chose to marry Kate. By all appearance happily. He could have walked away. He might not look it now, but in his early 20s he was a looker (google his 21st birthday royal portrait.) And he’ll always he a huge catch being the heir.

        The truth is, Will NEVER looks happy in any pictures. I think that has more to do with his general disdain for, well, everything than his choice in partner.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Yup. Could be.

      • Enough Already says:

        Who are these people
        I agree. My statement was supposed to imply that I could write an entire book on gender stereotypes and assumptions, especially about relationships. I mean, just look at all of the eyerolling and blaming Meghan because she dares to hold Harry’s hand. Or the supposed body language experts here who swore from the Jamaica wedding photos that Harry was pulling away from Meghan.

        I guess I should add an lol because context is tricky in text sometimes. But yes, I feel the same as you 🙂

      • Princessk says:

        True William was a big catch, but he was shy and the women he was interested in were also ‘big catches’ and William did not try hard enough to get them. He probably thought since I am a prince I shouldn’t have to try too hard, and he was used to girls like eager beaver Kate.

      • milla says:

        Wills was shy? Like a poor little lamb… William decided that Kate will be his wife. He was not a virgin he was not shy not lost and her vagina does not have magic powers.

        I am all for trashing the royals but not just throwing Kate under the bus. And this Jake guy is rich and has some royal connections, so his idea of working is not as ours.

    • Ollie says:

      Somehow most men try to look serious or overplay the proud look for the engagement photo, while women are all smily.
      Jack is definitely glowing. Very toothy.
      They look cute.

    • Peeking in says:

      Sigh

  19. Maria says:

    Congratulations! They seem like a nice couple. He no longer manages the nightclub, I believe. He is a brand ambassador for a tequila company created by George Clooney.
    So that’s two weddings, two royal babies, another royal baby in Sweden, and two more serene babies in Monaco!

  20. YankLynn says:

    I’m fascinated by the ring because I never heard of that kind/color of sapphire. I saw it described as a mix of red and yellow — is it kind of pink-y or pale orange-y ? I’ve been trying to zoom on the pics to get a better sense of the shade. Its not ruby red obviously, right ?

  21. Starryfish says:

    The ring is super dated but congrats to them, it’s been a long time coming. It’ll be interesting to see how this wedding pans out, Andrew in known to be super pushy about having all of the royal trappings regardless of his position in the line of succession.

    • Citresse says:

      I really like the ring, it’s interesting and different.

    • Lorelai says:

      I actually think her ring is beautiful! Kate’s is the one that looks super dated (for obvious reasons).

    • Aurelia says:

      Padpara sapphires are ultra expensive and rare. Pricier than white diamonds and rubies. You can’t even buy one over 6 carats. They only come in smaller stones.

  22. Petty Riperton says:

    Congrats to them!
    Minor royals should do weddings away from the usual stuffy “royal wedding” considering how unimportant they are. St George chapel and those checkered floors yikes!

    Harry and Meghan should’ve chose a nice picturesque destination for the wedding since he’s a non important royal

    • L84Tea says:

      Yikes…

    • notasugarhere says:

      Silly to insist he isn’t important. Dynastically his line isn’t, but Harry himself? He and his wife will be 1/3 of the working royals for the British Royal Family for the next 20 years.

    • Guest says:

      Lol….Harry’s going to be working for a long time. His father’s going to be king and George and Charlotte are still very young. They won’t be doing anything for years.

      • Jen says:

        Yeah, Harry’s going to be “working” for a long time.
        But he is going to be a minor royal too – he’ll soon be 6th in line for the throne. That’s not much ahead of where Eugenia was a few short years ago.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Being 1/3 of the team for 20 years doesn’t make him a minor royal. Minor royals would be people like Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, Duke of Gloucester. Cousins to the monarch, not the grandchild of the current monarch, son and brother of other future monarchs. He’ll be front and center for at least 20 years, plus be Counsellor of State for both his father’s and brother’s reigns (if anything lasts that long).

    • Lorelai says:

      Unimportant? They are both grandchildren of the Queen of England, FFS.

    • Petty Riperton says:

      Look where he’s having his wedding he’s unimportant and Willy’s punching bag

      • notasugarhere says:

        The majority of their courtship took place at Windsor, so Windsor appears a sentimental choice as well as an economically and security based one.

  23. Enough Already says:

    Wiith her complexion I would love to see her in something besides bright white. She would look stunning in ivory and slightly structured to show off her curves.

  24. me says:

    That’s very sweet. It’ll be hard for the older sister since her younger sister just got engaged. The “when will it be your turn?” or “let me find you a man” bullsh*t will happen.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Especially because Beatrice broke up with her longtime boyfriend (Dave Clark) and he pretty immediately turned around and married someone else.

    • Princessk says:

      Yes, we must spare a thought for poor older sister Beatrice, who was dumped by her rat of a boyfriend of ten years who immediately got engaged to somebody else. Beatrice will now have to face a year of people close to her talking about wedding plans, wedding dresses, bridesmaids etc and she will have to appear fully engaged and happy.

      In fairness Eugenie has been ready to get married for a long time but was waiting for Beatrice to get married, who then pressed her own boyfriend of ten years for a ring and the toad promptly ran off. Eugenie still could not announce her engagement because Meghan was fast tracked into the RF with an early wedding, no doubt because she is older.

      • notasugarhere says:

        When will the ageism around this match stop? Meghan and Harry decided they wanted to get married and when. They made that decision after 18 months and moved forward quickly because they wanted to. Sophie was 34 when she married Edward after years of dating. Meghan is 36. I’m not seeing a big difference there.

        Some people know sooner rather than later, as Harry knew at a couple of months. Harry’s own words “That sense of responsibility was was essentially from day one or maybe a couple of months in, when I sort of realized actually, this is you know, I feel I know that I’m in love with this girl. And I hope that she is in love with me.”

        Eugenie could announce her engagement at any time. She wasn’t required to wait for Harry and Meghan to make a decision.

      • Veronica says:

        Harry and Meghan are getting married after, what? Knowing each other for 16 months, 18 months, and most of that time they lived on separate continents. To deny the rush to marriage is to deny that her age is an issue. It isn’t ageism to point out that she will be 37 this summer and if they want children, it makes more sense to get married more quickly.
        Facts are facts, her age is her age, fertility decreases and dangers increase with each year. This isn’t a ding on Meghan, it is just numbers.

      • Tina says:

        It isn’t ageism, no. But also when you have been dating for a long time and even living with/married to previous partners, when you find the right person, you know. I got together with my husband when we were in our twenties, and we dated for 3 years before getting engaged. My best friend met her now-husband at 35 and got engaged within 6 months (they’ve been married for over 10 years). Eugenie and Meghan are simply at different stages in their lives.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Rania and Abdullah married basically within a year of meeting as did Felipe and Letizia. We don’t know how much time those other couples spent together, but they didn’t live together before their engagements. H+M were on separate continents but didn’t go more than two weeks without seeing each other (as told in their engagement interview).

        Insisting that she is “fast tracked” because of her age is ageism, insinuating he wouldn’t have made this decision at this point if she was a different age. He himself stated he knew she was the one right away, that he knew he was in love with her a couple months in.

        Insisting her age forced his hand is a not so subtle way of stating she forced him in to this marriage. That’s a popular theme on tumblr.

        Fertility is tricky, no guarantees for anyone, but that isn’t how the BRF works. If it was, Edward and Sophie wouldn’t have waited so long to get married. E&S married when they were both ready (Edward taking much longer to get to that point as shared by Sophie publicly). If necessary, the BRF is not opposed to IVF although it is no guarantee. Sophie was open about using it with Louise.

        In Lux, the heir and his wife stated they wouldn’t try to get pregnant for at least three years. She restated that again last year, that they weren’t trying and were good as they are for now. She is 34 next month. Her mother had her at age 43. You just never know.

      • Princessk says:

        If Meghan was in her early twenties I really believe that they would have had a longer engagement. As soon as I knew she was in her mid 30s I was sure that they would waste no time in getting married Harry was certain she was the one. I would not have been surprised if they had tied the knot in 2017 but she had to fulfil her obligations to Suits, and as soon as Suits was over the engagement and marriage date was announced. All of this detracts nothing from the integrity of the relationship, its just common sense.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If she had moved to the UK for years she’d be labelled Waity 2.0, and every job she got would be accused of being through favoritism.

        Sometimes when you know, you know. These two appear to have known early, so they’re acting accordingly. No reasons to wait, so they won’t bother.

  25. Laura Dawe says:

    I think Eugenie is a very pretty lady! Congratulations to her! So many happy moments for the royal family to see ok forward to this year 😁

  26. Jayna says:

    He never went to college from what I read. So if that’s the case, I wouldn’t call him well-educated just because he went to a private school growing up. It doesn’t mean he’s not smart, intellectually curious, and driven. Not everyone is cut out for college and take a different path. But well-educated is a term I use for people who pursue more than a high school degree, or whatever the equivalent is in England, as far as higher learning.

    I like their engagement photo. She looks pretty.

    • waitingforthesun says:

      Do you realize that there are different means of education, except going to college? Being well-educated has absolutely nothing to do with the fact whether you have a college diploma or not. I had met plenty people with college diploma who, unfortunately, happened to be one of the most uneducated and narrow-minded people I’ve encountered. Possessing a college diploma is not a reflection of how well a person is educated, particularly when you take into question the state of today’s academia. Many college graduates today are nothing more than a laughing stock and that is coming from someone who has a college degree! You seem rather immature and inexperienced in your thinking, at least that is how your comment comes across.

      • Veronica says:

        Generally, being well educated implies a higher degree. You can be self-educated, but that doesn’t mean well educated. My father was self-educated and one of the smartest men I knew. But he wasn’t “well educated.”

    • Tina says:

      Stowe is a phenomenal school. A-levels are much more advanced than any US high school. I say this not to denigrate the US system, because I think by the time you come out of a 4 year degree at Princeton or Harvard you are at roughly the same place as a person coming out of a 3 year degree at Oxford or Cambridge (it’s difficult to compare precisely because the UK system is much more specialised, the US system much more generalist). But Jack would have had about the equivalent of a US associates’ degree.

    • waitingforthesun says:

      @Veronica What a ridiculous presumption! No, you don’t need a college diploma in order to be well educated. Being well educated has a lot to do with the depth of the knowledge you possess and, quite frankly, that is possible to obtain without going to college. I went to college and got my degree, I am fluent in three languages, yet I still claim that college is not an only mean of getting a good education. Colleges are only one way of getting an education, but they are not be-all end-all. My sister, for instance, never went to college, but as far as the extent of knowledge goes, hers is far more superior to mine.

  27. aquarius64 says:

    Congrats to both of them. The pose and setting is similar to Will and Kate. Sorry I like that Harry and Meghan are outside the box on some things. Also, Eugenie is eighth in line to the throne so she doesn’t need the queen’s permission. I think St. George is Andrew’s idea; Eugenie is the first blood princess to marry since Anne and he wants a grand affair (and an earldom for his future son-in-law), especially since Meghan most likely will get HRH when she marries Harry. Sarah should be at the wedding; it’s her daughter. Brace yourself for the serious dirt digging now that Jack is official. DM likes to drag a marry in before the ceremony.

    • homeslice says:

      It’s going to very interesting to see Sarah back in the mix for this one!!

    • spidee!! says:

      Doubt he will get any title to be honest.

    • Merritt says:

      Being in the same room as Sarah Ferguson will be a nightmare for Prince Philip.

      • homeslice says:

        You don’t think he has perhaps mellowed a bit? lol!

      • Lady D says:

        Time for Phillip to forgive and forget. Does he plan on carrying a grudge for the rest of his life?

      • Tina says:

        If looks could kill, Sarah would be dead. There was a famous incident at Royal Ascot in 2015 where the Queen and Philip ran into Andrew and Sarah and he shot her a look that could cut glass (and thousands of people witnessed it).

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t think he’ll get a title but she’ll keep hers like Princess Alexandra. She’d be something like HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack/John Brooksbank.

    • Princessk says:

      How is she the first blood princess since Anne? Zara may not be titled Princess but her blood line is no different from Eugenie.

  28. L84Tea says:

    I just noticed that in the engagement photo she is wearing the dress that she wore when she was featured in Harper’s Bazaar.

  29. spidee!! says:

    Given that they’ve been together 8 years has anyone called him Waity Jack 😁

    • Imqrious2 says:

      Another article said she met him in Switzerland at age 19, when she was with her parents. Some years may’ve been sheared off to make it not so coincidental to her sister’s and Kate’s “wait”.

      • Jay says:

        Yeah, I thought they had been together longer than that too. But, remember, he’s a *man* so he wasn’t waiting around. He was the one in charge of that engagement decision (eye roll)

        As a guy, I’m guessing he’ll get off a bit easier with all that stuff.

      • spidee!! says:

        Sort of my tongue in cheek point Jay!! 🙂

    • graymatters says:

      Apparently they waited to marry until he could afford it. So no, he wasn’t waiting, he was working.

      Kate was known for waiting because that was ALL she did.

    • Honey says:

      Not missing the point but Jack worked full- time. His life wasn’t suspended waiting on Eugenie to come up to scratch. Perhaps the waity bit would have worked out better for Kate had her family been part of the idle rich. She would have been dubbed long-time girlfriend versus the Waity, which brings so many other factors into the public discussion of their relationship.

  30. HoustonGrl says:

    Yay! Congrats.

  31. homeslice says:

    She’s very cute…bet she’ll make a lovely bride!

  32. seesittellis says:

    Very nice photos – they look, er, well, human and natural instead of like an attempt to replicate an ad from a Tiffany catalogue. I love sapphires and I love the ring – feminine, a bit antique looking, and a rare and unusual stone – gorgeous color.

    Why on earth shouldn’t they get married at the same venue in the same year as Harry and Meghan? Eugenie is way down the list of succession. Prince Edward married Sophie there. Does everything have to be about Harry and Meghan?

    • homeslice says:

      Yes, that ring is fab! I didn’t care for MM’s ring at all. Very generic…although I am partial to colored stones…

      • seesittellis says:

        @homeslice – I kind of agree – this is a much more unusual item, MM’s is, well – big and expensive rock. Not that I’d turn it down if someone offered it to me 🙂 but if I were asked to choose, it wouldn’t be my first choice.

        When I think padparaschas, I think for color your very best old-fashioned creamsicle. Do they still have those? Perfect blend of pinky-orangey.

    • Maria says:

      I’m seriously coveting that ring. I don’t really think it looks that much like her mother’s ring, it looks more romantic, less defined. Love the colour.

  33. CynicalAnn says:

    One thing I notice with the York princesses, they spend A LOT of money on clothes. Does Prince Andrew have that much cash? Or the Queen is letting them spend up? I know Kate (rightly) takes a lot of heat for her wardrobe but she is married to the heir. These girls are “private” citizens without official duties, right?

    • Enough Already says:

      The Yorks are equally known for snagging deals at department stores. They pay for their own clothes and have working relationships with several top designers.

      • Princessk says:

        This is probably why so many of their dresses are so ghastly, they have to wear what they get given by designers and because they do not have the leverage of Kate or Meghan they can’t be too choosy and are grateful for what they get.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie have private inheritance from both Queen Mum and the Queen. A few million from Queen Mum (in 2002 currency), plus the majority of what would have been Sarah’s divorce settlement was invested in B&E’s names.

      Kate Middleton has wasted roughly $1 million of taxpayer money on her wardrobe in the last 7 years. No matter if she is married to the potential future king or not, that amount of money spent on silly coat dresses is inexcusable.

      • The Original Mia says:

        This!

        Very happy for Eugenie & Jack!

      • CynicalAnn says:

        Nota-you don’t need to sell me on Kate being wasteful. I get that. My point was that all of Eugenie and Beatrice’s clothes are designer, they have the whole shebang-shoes, hats, coats, dresses-and I almost never see them repeat. They spend WAY more than even Sophie does (and she’s a working royal)-and that surprises me.

      • notasugarhere says:

        CynicalAnn, they are free to do whatever they want clothing-wise as they are spending their own funds. Unless you’re keeping track of what they wear 365 days a year, how could you possibly know what they do and do not repeat on a daily basis?

        Most of the time when I see pap photos of them in their street style, it is not designer and they’re shown wearing the same pieces over and over. A lot of black in both their cases. When they’re at Ascot or photographed at a charity event, I’ve seen them repeat dresses, hats, shoes, coats, handbags, etc.

        Unlike Kate or Sophie they would be free to accept discounts because they are not working royals. As stated elsewhere, they often work with less expensive, little-known designers to try to bring the designers attention.

  34. Lady D says:

    Congratulations, I wish them both well. They certainly look happy.

  35. IB says:

    Is Jack Brooksbank the boyfriend that Prince William loathes, or was that a boyfriend of Beatrice’s?

    • LAK says:

      That was B’s ex-BF.

      • Lorelai says:

        Why did William loathe him?

      • Enough Already says:

        William thought he was indiscreet. The rumor was also that he thought Dave was too old to be hitting on Bea at the time. Bea was young and reeling from a traumatic relationship with a convicted murderer believe it or not.

      • Lorelai says:

        Thank you, and OMG — I had no idea poor Bea ever dated a convicted murderer. How did that one slip past the palace’s vetting…

      • Enough Already says:

        Lorelai
        Bea was so young then and enjoyed a bit more media protection. I imagine also that a few royal favors may have been called in to sidestep the story.

      • LAK says:

        Firstly, it wasn’t murder, but manslaughter. He got into a fight at a party which descended into a brawl ending in the death of the other person.

        Secondly, he hid his past when he moved to Europe and presented as a nice young man, if abit flash. As soon as his criminal charge was discovered, he was dropped immediately.

  36. Ozogirl says:

    Isn’t he a distant cousin? Ew…

    • Citresse says:

      Quite distant it’s not so Ew.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Not applicable to this couple but it blows my mind the olden days royals who married FIRST cousins. Victoria and Albert were first cousins. The current King of Norway is the son and grandson of married first cousins. I’m sure there are more examples…

      • notasugarhere says:

        Take these titles with grains of salt but recently Archduchess Gabriella of Austria and her fiance Prince Henri of Bourbon-Parma had a baby. They’re second cousins. Crown Prince of Tonga married one of his second cousins in 2012 too.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @nota I find the second cousin thing less icky the first cousin thing alarms me. Especially King Olav of Norway because it was way into the 20th century when he married his first cousin (they were a cute couple though!)

  37. All About Eve says:

    Can’t wait for the comments accusing Eugenie & Jack of trying to steal Harry & Meghan’s thunder! That seems to be the prevailing theme nowadays! Anytime William & Kate do something it’s now because they are trying to compete with H&M. Even Wills haircut is because of H&M!

    Seems hard to believe that the world doesn’t revolve around two people. I wonder how the royals managed to survive before H&M!

    • seesittellis says:

      This . . . +1,000.

    • waitingforthesun says:

      Cosign on this one! People are so pathetic that they think the whole bloody world revolves around H&M. A man can’t even get a haircut without people insinuating that he did it just to steal the spotlight from H&M! Some people’s madness truly knows no boundaries.

    • Jen says:

      I was reading earlier today a message board that speculated they were getting married where H&M are as a sign they are racists wanting to detract from Meghan entering the royal family. Nothing to do with the 7 years they’ve been dating or anything.

      • waitingforthesun says:

        Anyone who follows BRF knows that rumors about J&E engagement have been going on for approximately two years. It was really just a matter of time at this point. It was bound to happen sooner rather than later. What the heck were they supposed to do? Cancel their engagement? Why? For Harry and Meghan? Ridiculous! Sometimes, I can’t believe how stupid and mean people can be. And this is really getting out of control. It seems that no one inside the BRF should do anything before H&M wedding so as not to outshine them. Their fans truly have gone mad.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I can’t see how the two would be related, just like I don’t think Zara and Mike had to wait until after W&K announced their engagement. Eugenie said in their quick engagement interview with BBC “We knew it was going to end up this way” in regards to them getting married. They knew they were going to get married at some point, but him asking her now was a surprise.

      • Princessk says:

        Surprise my foot! They knew they were getting engaged and they knew when it was to be announced. In the royal family everything is timed and planned. If Beatrice’s toad boyfriend had not messed up and if Harry had not found Meghan then Eugenie would have been engaged long ago. Eugenie had to wait to let the dust settle after her sister had been badly let down.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Not buying it. If we followed that line, Zara and Mike would have been forced to wait much longer than they did. When it comes to people further down the line, they can do what they want when they want. Eugenie didn’t need HM’s permission to marry, she and her boyfriend get to live their lives on their timeline. They didn’t have to wait for Beatrice or Harry to get engaged before they did.

        I don’t know what autumn will mean in this case. HM is at Balmoral for two months, usually until early-to-mid October. I doubt she and Philip would travel to Windsor for a wedding in September then go back north. November? Depending on the weather, that would let LAK and bluhare have some of their winter royal wedding dreams fulfilled.

      • Tina says:

        I think people are conflating things that have nothing to do with each other. Eugenie and Jack were probably never going to announce in 2017 anyway because of Beatrice, and then they had to wait a little while longer whilst Harry and Meghan figured out the Queen’s availability in the spring. I think Eugenie’s wedding is likely to be on 20 or 27 October (if I had to pick one I’d say 27 October because there’s a big race meeting at Ascot on 20 October). Any earlier and HM will still be at Balmoral and any later and they’ll be into rugby autumn internationals.

    • Olenna says:

      Where are all of these comments you’re talking about?

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        Thank you, Olenna, I was just wondering that myself.

      • waitingforthesun says:

        @Olenna Well, considering that only a couple of days ago an article was published on this very same site insinuating that William got his new haircut in order to steal the spotlight from H&M and that in the comment section people largely agreed with the premise of that article, it wasn’t far-fetched to assume that people would go down the same route with the E&J engagement announcement. I, myself, have been rather pleasantly surprised that the comment section turned out to be rather civil, because, as I have said before, things tend to get rather nasty around H&M and their fans, who have a knack for exaggerating things and attacking people who disagree with them or don’t share their love for H&M. Please, don’t get me wrong, this is not pointed at you, but rather, my observation how things have been going since they (H&M) got engaged.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @waitingfortheshun:

        “things tend to get rather nasty around H&M and their fans”

        It’s interesting because i see it completely the other way around……Scores of reasonable criticisms of them usually remain unchallenged here.

        It seems to me that things kick off when their “haters” or detractors interrupt the normal push and pull of the conversation here, with extremely or unnecessarily nasty/judgmental and sometimes downright racist comments and lies……they then usually act surprised when people push back and want to defend them from such comments.

        That’s usually when things start getting ugly.

      • Olenna says:

        @Bellagio Dupont, ITA. Some of the newcomers here are totally off the chain with the repetitive and negative commentary on MM’s morals, her private thoughts and feelings, her expenditures, etc. Even here, a Eugenie thread, FGS. Their obsessive behavior is so bizarre at times, I feel like a liberal who’s stumbled into the comments section of a Fox News article.

    • waitingforthesun says:

      @Bellagio DuPont I wholeheartedly disagree. Maybe our experiences are different, but that was certainly not the impressions I got from H&M fans. It seems to me that, at times, there is a sort of a hero worship of Meghan, as if she can do no wrong. In addition, it was H&M fans, on this site and generally elsewhere on the internet, who were rude and dismissing to any opposing opinion, and when people call them on their BS they act as if they don’t know what the heck people are talking about, not to mention they go on a tirade where they call people racists just for stating an opinion that is not in awe of Meghan. That is not to say, that there were not some incredibly racist and disgusting things said about Meghan. Furthermore, when Meghan is criticized, whether rightfully or wrongfully, her fans show their true colors by claiming that Kate was never criticized to the same extent that Meghan is. Anyone, who follows BRF knows this to be untrue. Kate was incessantly criticized, during her courtship with Will and after her marriage. They act as if Kate was exempt from criticism.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Waitingforthesun:

        You are so busy raging at the *idea* of commenters accusing Eugenie & Jack of stealing M&H’s thunder, you seem not to have noticed that no such comments have *actually* been made here.

        I don’t really fancy going round and round on this, so I’ll just finish by saying that while I *do* agree that Kate is too harshly criticized sometimes (and have stated that several times on this site), I don’t think she ever got the out and out *VITRIOL* that Meghan gets from some quarters.

        And if you don’t see it that way, that’s cool too. Maybe you just have a higher tolerance for this stuff than me.

  38. aquarius64 says:

    Oh God. I just had a thought. Trump and May are still at loggerheads and he’s steamed about a negative reception in the UK. the news about Trump being snubbed for Harry and Meghan’s wedding Trump may push for an invite to this wedding (or a Trump gets on the guest list) to keep US UK relations in tact. This wedding will be no more of a state occasion than H&M, but because Meghan took a swing at Trump on a late night show Trump would want to go to a wedding where neither the bride or groom have a beef with him. Poor Eugenie and Jack.

  39. Katie says:

    I notice in the announcement they called Fergie the Duchess of York. Does she still have that title? I thought she lost it when they divorced, like Diana stopped being the Princess of Wales.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Diana kept being the Princess of Wales. She lost the Her Royal Highness title though. Same with Fergs I think

    • waitingforthesun says:

      There is a slight difference here. Her title is stylized as Duchess of York instead of being The Duchess of York. If she remarries, she will lose the title. As you can see it’s a minor difference in the name, but RF has it ways that seem ridiculous to us, mere mortals and commoners.

    • lyla says:

      HRH The Duchess of York = married
      Sarah, Duchess of York or just Duchess of York = divorced (comma after the name and lack of THE means divorced)
      funnily when people write Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge they’re erroneously saying she’s divorced.

    • LAK says:

      Diana remained Princess of Wales after the divorce. She lost the definitive article that declared she was THE princess of Wales, and she regained her maiden name in her title as well as gaining a comma.

      Married Diana = The Princess of Wales

      Divorced Diana = Diana, Princess of Wales.

      And so too Fergie.

      Married Fergie = The Duchess of York

      Divorced Fergie = Sarah, Duchess of York.

      As neither Andrew or Fergie have remarried, she remains the only Duchess of York in the land. If or When Andrew remarries, then his new wife will become THE Duchess of York, and Fergie will lose it completely.

      And if you (female) marry an HRH(male), you automatically become HRH yourself. However, if you divorce said HRH, you also automatically lose it.

      • Tourmaline says:

        When Andrew remarries… Hahahhahahah

        Thanks for the explanations– I never appreciated the THE significance

    • Tina says:

      It will be interesting to see what happens when Andrew dies. Assuming he doesn’t remarry and father a son, the title of Duke of York will revert to the monarch to be granted to someone at a future date. They’re running out of suitable royal dukedoms. I think that if Kate’s third child is a boy then it will likely be kept for him (it’s traditionally given to the monarch’s second son). But if Charles is King when Andrew dies and Kate’s third child is a girl (and W&K don’t have any more children), he might give it to Harry. And then would it be a double dukedom? This stuff couldn’t matter less and yet I find it interesting.

      • LAK says:

        York is very specific in who can hold it just like POW or Princess Royal. For that reason it’s not inheritable even if Andrew had sons.

        However, titles are held until death even if other eligible claimants come into view. That means that if Andrew is still alive when Charles becomes King, he remains the Duke of York even though he won’t be the 2nd son of the monarch at that point. Harry would have to wait until Andrew’s death to receive the York title. Assuming Charles outlived Andrew.

        If William becomes King before Harry receives York title either because Andrew is still alive or it simply was never granted by Charles after Andrew’s death, then Harry stops being the next eligible claimant due to being brother of the monarch instead of 2nd son of the monarch.

        In that scenerio, the next eligible claimant would be William’s 2nd son. And if there is no second son, then it would be George’s 2nd son.

        Similar scenerio happened with the princess royal title which was held by princess Mary until her death in 1965. By that time, our current *Queen was monarch and therefore no longer in the running for it and so it moved to the next eligible claimant who is Anne. The next eligible claimant is Charlotte.

        *the Queen being the heir presumptive complicates the straight line inheritance of the title. However, there was always the expectation that there might be another baby, hopefully a male to inherit, thus pushing her down into being the princess royal.

      • Tina says:

        @LAK, Duke of York has never been inherited because each time it has been created the person has either inherited the throne or died without male heirs. But there’s nothing inherent in the title that it cannot be passed to male heirs. It’s the same with Duke of Edinburgh – if it is given to Edward, then James will inherit it eventually. York has traditionally been given to second sons but not always – Victoria gave Edinburgh to her second son.

        All of these titles are in the gift of the monarch. There’s no automatic entitlement to them unless they are inherited in the male line, as Kent and Gloucester have been. I agree that if William is king when Andrew dies then it is unlikely that Harry would be granted the title, but William would be within his power to do so. Anne did not become Princess Royal automatically on Princess Mary’s death. The title was awarded to Anne by the Queen in 1987.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The title was granted to Anne when she was pitching a fit about the popularity of Diana and Fergie. Also the rewriting of the Order of Precedence to make Diana and Fergie curtsy to Anne when their husbands weren’t present. Anne is nowhere near the down-to-earth person some think.

        If W&K have a second son, I expect Duke of York title to go to him.

      • LAK says:

        Tina: The monarch is always free to give the title at any time, immediately or decades later or not at all or even give a different title to the person, but they have never given those 3 titles (POW, DOY, PR) to anyone who didn’t meet the *criteria since the Tudors.

        *POW = The heir
        DOY = 2nd son
        PR = Eldest daughter

  40. Kelly says:

    How will Sarah be handled? She’s the mother of the bride, yet Philip will not tolerate her presence. I would hate to see her shut out.

    • spidee!! says:

      He will have to grin and bear it!

      • homeslice says:

        That’s ridiculous. If he’s so bothered he should take a sick day and skip it. Really, she’s the mother of the bride, for goodness sake…

      • Maria says:

        Agree it was twenty-five years ago. Get over it Phillip.

    • Tina says:

      Philip certainly hasn’t forgiven Fergie, but they won’t leave Sarah out, not for her daughter’s wedding. I suspect it will all be carefully stage-managed such that he spends a limited amount of time there and their paths don’t cross.

      • Molly says:

        Totally agree. Fergie will totally be front and center, but it’ll be a very calculated dance of avoidance. And I don’t believe for one second that Philip’s over it. His hatred of her is what keeps him alive.

      • Princessk says:

        I am expecting to see Fergie at Harry’s wedding.

    • Princessk says:

      Philip needs to get over it. He is 96 and goes to church every Sunday but still doesn’t know the meaning of forgiveness?

    • Bellagio DuPont says:

      Considering his own extensive portfolio of scandals, I’m surprised he’s so unforgiving.

      • Tina says:

        I think that’s precisely why he’s so unforgiving. He cannot understand why she would have been so public, when he has devoted his life to being discreet (less discreet than he thinks he’s been, but more discreet than Fergie).

  41. Sassback says:

    Even their engagement photos look more loved up than Will and Kate’s. Not sexy as Meghan and Harry’s but I love the smiles in the natural pose pic.

    • waitingforthesun says:

      I disagree. If anything, H&M engagement photos were a try-hard. They were simply too much Hollywood, not to mention that 75 000 $ dress which didn’t really resonate well with the British public. It showed how much out of touch both of them are despite the PR trying to portray them as something new or refreshing or modernizing monarchy.

    • Olenna says:

      Yes, they do look loved up, actually smitten with each other. Eugenie seems like a sweet person; she’s very pretty and photographs well. I, too, liked the H&M photos. That pose on the steps–it was the first time I ever thought of Harry as anything more than cute. He was throwing out some real sex appeal in that pic, LOL!

    • waitingforthesun says:

      H&M engagement photos seemed more like a perfume ad than photos deserving of a royal couple. Instead of keeping it simple and classy, they went overboard, no wonder the photos weren’t well received by the British public. Furthermore, people have a short memory span and tend to neglect the fact that the dress was inappropriate for the occasion, and its price didn’t exactly rub well on the Brits. Although Meghan is an American citizen, she is going to be British duchess, supported by the British taxpayers, and it is not to Americans she has to appeal, but to the Brits.

  42. Kaz says:

    They both look so happy – lovely photograph and very warm looking colour-wise. So appropriate for the wintery time of year. I wish them a long and happy marriage.

    The York princesses could be such an asset and it always amazes me that they are so sidelined. There is no way on earth that the ‘slimmed down’ monarchy envisaged by Prince Charles eill ever be able to cope with all the work demands.