BBC refuse to air Princess Eugenie’s wedding despite Prince Andrew's demands
Princess Eugenie’s Royal Wedding to Jack Brooksbank will not be aired live by the BBC or Sky next month because they think it will be a ratings flop - but ITV may come to the rescue.
I agree with the Beeb over this. As a caller said on Jeremy Vine this morning "So one of the chuckle sisters is getting married, so what?"
I don't think many people, royalists or not, will see the wedding of a minor royal worthy of full attention from the media. Prince Andrew is upset. They are getting 2 million pounds worth of security from the public purse for security, anything else they should pay for themselves. They could always have kept things low key as Zara did.
I can’t even remember which one it is that is getting married! Andrew seems to have an unrealistic view of his importance to the country. Yes, he fought in the Falklands but so did a lot of other people. It seems to be part of his ongoing battle with Charles - Charles wants to slim down the main players to his immediate family.
A long time ago Prince Andrew was the 'good looking' one who was a bit rebellious and seemed less stuffy than the rest of them. Now he is a complete buffoon who thinks his family are far more important than they actually are. Like Frazz said, Zara had a low key wedding which was not televised and she is a granddaughter of the 'Boss' too.
I don't have a problem with the cost of security as it's to stop nutters and terrorists having a pop at HMQ (probably not Philip as he's tidying his sock drawer that day in order to avoid the ghastly Fergie) but I'm not remotely interested in either of the freeloading Ugly Sisters or their parents.
I don't know about simple. But on this side of the pond/ocean the press portrays the daughters of Andrew and Fergie as a bit snotty/with superior attitude and looking down their nose at others.
I don't think there is any interest here in the US in watching that wedding. Unlike Harry and Meghan's, which many of us watched part of, at least, at some point in our day. (They replayed it on some news stations)
A little mitigation in that she had to put her planned wedding on hold so that Harry could marry Meghan.I am being Devil's advocate here because I am not remotely interested one way or the other but, whatever his faults, Andrew is the Queen's son, just as Charles is, so his petulance is probably justified, in his mind. Charles is an ass in my opinion. Anyone, future king or not, who has a flunky to squeeze toothpaste onto his brush, in this day and age, is contemptible.The Queen is as down to earth as it is possible to be, given her position and I think Charles is deluded and remote from the public. My beef with the wedding is just the general tackiness of it, but Harry and Meg seem to have started that trend.
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
I suppose the difference with Andrew is he is not heir to the throne, and doesn't seem do a great deal by way of public duties. Couldn't agree more about Charles, I think they are both remote from the public these days.
I shall not be watching Ruth and thingy bringing us the wedding. Boring! Who cares! Most unlikely that Charles would choose Charles III as his name. I think he might go for another George...George VII?