Wonder if they'll remain in Ivy Cottage, or need to find someplace larger?
Congratulations to the couple!
I wonder if they're giving us a hint with the booties as they're blue?!
Congratulations to Princess Eugenie and Jack.
Maybe HM can give them a cottage to renovate - maybe York Cottage or Adelaide Cottage.
Congratulations to Princess Eugenie and Jack.
Maybe HM can give them a cottage to renovate - maybe York Cottage or Adelaide Cottage.
Can we open a separate thread?
Boy or Girl?
Month expected?
Is there a possibility that Jack Brooksbank's mother was asked if she would be happy to be addressed "Mrs. George Brooksbank"?
Was Mike Tindall's addressed as Mrs. Linda Tindall, rather than Mrs. Philip Tindall?
When Mike and Zara announced it was 'Mr Philip and Mrs Linda Tindall have been informed and are delighted with the news'.
It seems its just a personal preference at how they are addressed. The wording is likely chosen in regards to address by the parents in question. Linda must prefer to use her name where Nicola is happy going traditional.
Kate and Autumn's parents weren't named at all. It was just 'their families'. With George's announcement, the queen, DOE, POW, DOC, and Harry were named but the middletons were 'and other members of both families'. With Charlotte and George the only ones named were Elizabeth and DOE, and 'members of both families' for everyone else.
Thank you for the direct quote for the Mike and Zara's baby announcement.
The reason that I could think of that Kate and Autumn's parents were not named, is that their grandchildren will not carry their surnames (Middleton or Kelly). In other words, Kate and Autumn's parents are the maternal side of the baby, hence they are not mentioned by their names. In contrast, Mike and Jack's parents are the paternal side of the baby, so they got mentioned.
Of course, this is assuming that the baby will take his/her father's surname.
Most of the media reports baldly stated that the child will be Master or Miss Brooksbank. Of course, I assume the baby will indeed take his/her father's surname, but it is interesting that media outlets are reporting it as confirmed even though there was no mention of it in the pregnancy announcement. I wonder if that is because the child is legally required to take the father's surname (something that has been debated here on this forum) or simply because anything else would be unthinkable for a British royal baby? Or perhaps they have asked the palace privately and received confirmation.
I don't know if it would be unthinkable but it would be highly unusual. In the UK I think the vast majority of children who's parents are married take their father's surname.
[...]
Eugenie still using "of York" in certain places doesn't mean she doesn't want her children to be Brooksbanks. They'll have the same perks that their 2nd and 3rd cousins have (Tindells, Phillips, little Windsors etc) without as many downsides as their HRH Prince/ss 2nd cousins.
I don't know if it would be unthinkable but it would be highly unusual. In the UK I think the vast majority of children who's parents are married take their father's surname.
And if it's good enough for the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret.......I know those were decades ago.
I see no reason why the baby needs to be Mountbatten-Windsor instead of Brooksbank. I suppose they could incorporate both parts if they wanted or use "York" as a middle name if that's important to her.
Eugenie still using "of York" in certain places doesn't mean she doesn't want her children to be Brooksbanks. They'll have the same perks that their 2nd and 3rd cousins have (Tindells, Phillips, little Windsors etc) without as many downsides as their HRH Prince/ss 2nd cousins.
The Queen's statement to the Privy Council in 1960 makes it clear that the surname Mountbatten-Windsor does not apply the Queen's female descendants who might marry or tp the respective descendants of the latter. So it is clear that the Queen's female descendants are expected to take their husbands' name upon marriage and that their children are expected to use their father's surname.
Beatrice's and Eugenie's children will follow the same naming conventions that applied to Zara's children. Any deviation from that rule is highly unlikely.
The Queen's statement to the Privy Council in 1960 makes it clear that the surname Mountbatten-Windsor does not apply the Queen's female descendants who might marry or tp the respective descendants of the latter. So it is clear that the Queen's female descendants are expected to take their husbands' name upon marriage and that their children are expected to use their father's surname.
Beatrice's and Eugenie's children will follow the same naming conventions that applied to Zara's children. Any deviation from that rule is highly unlikely.
I agree, I fully expect the child will be a Brooksbank. However, in the normal course of events, I would not expect the media to state it as fact without receiving confirmation, unless anything else were truly unthinkable. That was what motivated my question.
As a comparison, I fully expected that neither Jack nor the couple's future children would be given titles, and there was and is no reason to think they would, but I would not expect the media to present that as fact before it was officially confirmed, and as far as I saw, they did not.