Princess Beatrice will get the first London royal wedding since Will & Kate

Royal Wedding Alert! Princess Beatrice is engaged to property tycoon Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi **FILE PHOTOS**

When Prince Harry married then-Meghan Markle, I remember making the argument that they should actually have the ceremony and reception in London rather than Windsor. We were told by all of the royal experts and commentators that London was never going to be an option for Harry and Meghan because “Harry is not the heir” and “minor royals get weddings in Windsor.” It seemed… strange. This seems strange too: after months of family drama, it looks like the Queen wants to give Princess Beatrice a London wedding. Oh.

Princess Beatrice has watched with sadness as her father Prince Andrew was forced to give up royal duties for an unspecified time. But now the Queen has stepped in to give her beloved granddaughter a huge morale boost. Her Majesty has offered to hold Beatrice’s wedding reception at Buckingham Palace later this year. One friend said: ‘Bea was delighted and very grateful to accept. It was a really special gesture as it will be the first wedding celebration at Buckingham Palace since William and Catherine’s in 2011.’

All three subsequent royal weddings have been in Windsor. Beatrice’s sister Princess Eugenie tied the knot in 2018 at St George’s Chapel, with a reception at the castle. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had exchanged vows there earlier that year.

[From The Daily Mail]

Some will argue that Harry and Meghan WANTED to have their wedding in Windsor, and maybe they did. But I guarantee that Windsor was the only “option” given to them. No one in the family wanted to face William’s wrath if – gasp – Harry and Meghan got married at Westminster Abbey and had a Buckingham Palace reception. So what changed? My guess is that it’s just the Queen once again giving into whatever HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, wants. Andrew always wanted to embiggen his daughters, and now here’s Princess Beatrice, getting the first Buckingham Palace wedding reception since Prince William and Kate Middleton. And this kind of sh-t absolutely does matter, and it is absolutely being done on purpose. The Yorks are being pushed as the stable saviors to the Queen in the wake of Sussexit. The “blood princesses” are being treated better than the biracial American woman. That’s the message they want to send.

Prince Jean-Christophe Napoléon and Olympia d'Arco-Zinneberg are married

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

186 Responses to “Princess Beatrice will get the first London royal wedding since Will & Kate”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. aquarius64 says:

    This also makes up for BBC and ITV not televising Bea’s wedding. The blood princess’ nuptials has to be grand. I also think the royals are afraid the FBI will serve an arrest warrant on Andrew at the reception and it would be hard to do that at BP.

    • runcmc says:

      I don’t think Andrew being served at his daughters wedding is plausible. These people have security up the wahoo, nobody will get anywhere near them without being thoroughly vetted first.

    • Doobie says:

      But they aren’t the FBI.

      Just a little thought, but if the US wanted us to extradite him perhaps the UK govt would say “you can have Andrew if we can have the driver who killed Harry Dunn”. Google it folks.

    • Tessa says:

      Eugenie got the more scaled down wedding. Does Bea want more because she is the oldest?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Eugenie’s wedding was not scaled down, it was larger than Harry and Meghan’s. Eugenie and Jack had 850 guests, Harry and Meghan had 600.

      • Tessa says:

        Eugenie only had clips of the wedding shown. Harry and Meghan’s entire wedding ceremony was televised. That’s what i meant by scaled down. They may have had more guests but Harry and Meghan got the coverage. The magazines gave the Sussex wedding a lot more coverage as well.

      • Emmitt says:

        I think Eugenie had an actual 2 day extravaganza, so I don’t think her wedding was scaled down from Harry & Meghan’s. The only reason Harry & Meghan got more TV coverage than Eugenie is because nobody cares about Eugenie. They also don’t care about Beatrice which is why her wedding isn’t to be televised at all.

      • Peggy says:

        Not sure where in the world you are but Eugenie’s wedding was definitely aired live and in full here in Australia.

    • caty says:

      I am sorry dear but that is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. The UK is a sovereign country and contrary to many Americans assertions that their law enforcement can just go around the world arresting people if they want, the answer to that is a big fat “NO”. Any arrests have to first be approved by the UK government and then it would be the UK law enforcement making the arrest then waiting for the approval to finally extradite. Like that is going to happen to a member of the royal family, lol.

      • Nic919 says:

        Any regular UK citizen charged with the crimes Andrew has done would already be sent over to the US. Let’s not pretend the corruption on the UK end of this isn’t the real problem.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Extradition treaties are a thing.

        If any of Andrew’s crimes occurred on US soil, then that treaty, if he were a commoner, would absolutely be invoked. The US diplomat’s wife who committed vehicular manslaughter against Harry Dunn – there have been calls for her extradition. I agree with them. Anne Sacoolas should be sent to the UK to face justice.

        We shouldn’t have one law for the commons and one law (immunity) for the rich & powerful. In America, in theory at least, no one is above the law (the GOP are trying to twist that like a pretzel for Trump today, but even the GOP can’t stay in power forever).

    • sj says:

      lol, americans are hilarious. just because your borders are open wide to let absolutely everyone in, doesn’t mean other countries will let your FBI waltz in and arrest their citizens.

      • Elizabeth says:

        SJ the idea our borders are open wide is so wrong it’s tragic. Wow have you not followed anything that happened under our current president?

      • Nahema says:

        The anti American and anti British sentiments on here can sometimes be worrying when so many people claim to be woke. It’s true that Andrew would have to be extradited. The FBI can’t just rock up and arrest him but the subject of immigration is a shocking one in both countries, with Trumps attempts to keep out anyone who isn’t rich and white and Brexit, the propaganda for which was mostly about stopping immigrants coming and supposedly taking all the jobs.

      • anon says:

        What a xenophobic comment to make!

      • sj says:

        FYI, it’s normal for most nations to have some sort of system – usually merit-based – to vet immigrants before they’re allowed entry.

    • A says:

      The FBI would absolutely navigate with the appropriate channels to make sure that Andrew isn’t “embarrassed” by them if it ever came down to it. Peasants, on the other hand, will have their doors broken down and half a dozen fully armed law enforcement officers storming their homes without a single care about anyone’s dignity or respect. Not so for princes of the realm, obviously.

  2. MOT says:

    I always heard people say they didn’t care about the royal family but because I love Princess Diana and then William (when he was younger) and Harry, I loved Royal gossip…I’m now in the “don’t care” camp 😕

  3. L84Tea says:

    This is so gross. And also sort of sad and pathetic.

    • Me Again says:

      It IS gross. The message being sent is appalling.

    • Mac says:

      The article says Andrew has withdrawn from public duties for an “unspecified” period of time. He and the queen are plotting his come back and it is so gross.

      • Tessa says:

        Unspecified will probably sooner rather than later IMO.

      • Interesting Mac —. Well obviously that last emergency summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Prince Charles wasn’t a win for Charles. I find it interesting that the info is about the wedding reception. Just where is the wedding to be held? Is there a large chapel at BP? If wedding reception is at BP, it would seem like the wedding would be held at a large church in London. Maybe they think it’s good PR to soften the public up with announcement of wedding reception venue and then announce location of wedding; Unless they plan on a small, intimate wedding and huge wedding reception. I see Andrew in all this. He sure is beating the hell out of Charles lately.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        I noticed that too.

        Also, wth with Harry being cast as a “minor” royal at the time of his wedding? At the time of his wedding he was very much a “senior” royal. The minor thing is the crux of Sussexit, a very recent development.

        I remember some stories at the time that “MEGHAN AND HARRY *WANTED*” a low key wedding, and there was sneering by the Rota about it. I think they were pissed they weren’t going to be called to cover a wedding at St. Paul’s.

        I have often wondered since, given the behaviour of Heritage Chicken Chaz and Workshy Wanderdick, whether the Windsor wedding was really H&M’s choice, or whether they were pressured to the venue so as not to outshine the prior nuptials of W&K. It might have even been a bit of both – the couple wanting a more intimate setting, and W&K not wanting H&M’s wedding to be more spectacular than theirs – relatives always seem to put their petty into overdrive when it comes to weddings.

        A funny question that just occurred to me: what if the real reason Deadbeat Dad Markle refused to walk his daughter down the aisle, was because it wasn’t going to be at Westminster or St. Paul’s? Not grand enough for him? Thoughts?

  4. WatchThisSpace says:

    Well, well. HMTQ pulls another petty move to shade the DDoS. And yeah, if true, is absolutely shade, especially in the context of Sussexit

    • Derriere says:

      She really doesn’t know when to stop, does she?

      • She’s old, she’s secure in her role, I don’t think she gives a damn how this looks anymore. As far as she and Andrew are concerned, Charles can just stuff it. What Andrew wants, Andrew seems to be getting.

    • Elisa says:

      +1, this is 100% on TQ.

    • Heather says:

      Or: HMTQ fully understands how devastating the fall-out from Prince Andrew’s steaming pile of s*!t has been on his daughters, and wants to do something nice for Beatrice.
      Not every single thing is about Harry and Meghan.
      Also, it’s only the wedding reception that is being held at BP.

      • Evil Owl says:

        I agree, Heather. And it’s also the last royal wedding of this generation & likely the last one that HMTQ & Prince Philip will attend, so maybe they wanted to push the boat out and throw a splashy Reception for their grand daughter while they’re alive & well enough to be able to. I don’t think children should be punished for the actions of their parents.

      • Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

        I agree this is likely why.

        There appears to be an insistence here that every single royal story be spun into a Meghan snub of—ahem—Royal proportions. Tiresome at times.

      • notasugarhere says:

        This isn’t doing something nice for Beatrice. It is the Queen once again choosing her rapist pedo of a son (and his line) over the bi-racial woman. This is very much about Harry and Meghan.

      • KW says:

        regardless if people think it’s about a snub to Meghan, which I don’t believe, it’s still super gross that she will parading her disgusting son Prince Pedo in front of the public in London because he is a disgusting rapey, lying sack of sh*t. That is why people can move to abolish this disgusting family. It can only get worse.

      • Vanessa says:

        I 100% agree with you. Will change my mind if all of a sudden the *ceremony* is at Westminster, though.

      • A says:

        The fact of the matter is that the Queen has to consider the absolutely abysmal optics of it all. No, not everything is about H&M. But when a member of your family with credible allegations of sexually abusing underaged trafficked girls is allowed a public event of this nature that will inevitably be used to paint over and straighten out his reputation, that is going to raise some serious questions. And it will inevitably invite some serious comparisons to other family members who haven’t been engaging in alleged criminal activity but are nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, exiled in the eyes of the public.

        The Queen isn’t some sweet little granny who just wants “to do something nice.” She is a monarch who has grown up in an environment where an incredibly strict hierarchy is constantly enforced, with the explicit intention of keeping people in their place. She doesn’t do stuff like this to “be nice.” She does stuff like this fully aware of what type of message she is sending about the hierarchy in her family as she sees it wishes it to be. So why not take her at her word and accept that she cares more for her pedophile son and wants to give him an opportunity to rehab his reputation in the eyes of the public than she does for her own grandson and his wife who, last I checked, haven’t engaged in any type of criminal activity whatsoever but haven’t received anywhere close to this type of support from the Queen in the last two years?

      • Nic919 says:

        Beatrice isn’t owed a wedding and sometimes life isn’t fair. Just like it wasn’t for the girls who were raped by Andy and Epstein. No one actually cares about it being the “last royal wedding of the generation” which actually ignores Edward’s kids. Eugenie’s wedding wasn’t a world wide event and it wouldn’t be for Beatrice either.

        No wedding is going to undo the mess the Queen has made of protecting her criminal son.

    • Tessa says:

      Not surprising in the least. There probably will be TV coverage as well. It’s amazing how she keeps Andrew in the fold and did not try to keep the Sussexes.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Do you know for a fact that QEII did not try to keep the Sussexes in the Royal fold?

        I do not think anyone knows what really went down and we will not know what really went down for years.

      • GuestWho says:

        @Bay We know she certainly never made an attempt to publicly support them or shut the newspapers down.

      • Mumbles says:

        It’s already been established that there will be no TV coverage.

        And it’s also been reported that the nuptials are likely to be in the chapel of one of the smaller palaces and maybe even at one of the barracks. Windsor Castle and a carriage ride around town sounds a lot grander.

    • Doobie says:

      Nothing to do with the Sussexes (many things aren’t despite the spin), a royal wedding at Westminter Abbey on Cup Final Day???

      Charles had his second marriage blessing at Windsor after a Register Office wedding at Windsor, was that spite too?

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        yes, yes it was spiteful because the Queen refused to attend in her role of “Church Head” so she couldn’t attend because her manufactured church believes marriage is only between …. oh I no longer care…

      • Tessa says:

        This was Charles’ second marriage, considered controversial by part of the population. Charles had the grand scale wedding with his first wife Diana. This was supposed to be more low key. Two divorced people getting married.

      • A says:

        @Doobie, yes it was? His second wedding was never going to be on the same scale as his first, obviously, but as others have mentioned, his own mother refused to attend. The Queen will be photographed with Andrew on multiple occassions as a show of support, even though he’s an accused criminal, but going to the second wedding of her divorced son is where she ABSOLUTELY draws the line.

    • Liz version 700 says:

      I am amazed that one person could be so petty. They ran the first biracial couple away from the continent, so in response? Punish them for leaving the abuse. And thus appears to be coming straight from the top as I now think some of the abuse did. I doubt Harry and Meghan even care? I don’t know what do you guys think does stuff like this actually hurt them or are they so used to it that they aren’t even phased at the shade against them?

  5. Scollins says:

    Yuck. Am I missing some compelling or even remotely interesting things about this couple that warrants a royal wedding?

    • Ali says:

      The only interesting thing is his ex-fiancee and son.

      • Emmitt says:

        Beatrice’s stepson is half-Asian. The Royal Family and the British Press will go out of their way to be glowing about Edo’s son to show they weren’t racist towards Meghan & Archie, Meghan and Archie were bad people so that’s why they had to go. And I know Archie is a baby, but that didn’t stop the press from calling him a chimpanzee or a spoiled brat.

      • Tessa says:

        The child has a mother. Bea will probably have children with Edo and his stepson will not be seen as much to begin with. The royals can’t make it the “same” as Meghan and Harry.

      • Emmitt says:

        The stepson (and his mother) will be used by the RF to show they are welcoming of other races and are not racist, that it was Meghan who was the problem, not them. I expect to see pap pictures of Beatrice and the stepson and other members of the RF with Beatrice & the stepson to be used against Meghan.

    • Stephanie Hawkins says:

      A princess of the realm and the queens beloved grandchild. Were you unaware

    • Lorri says:

      The royals don’t put on weddings because of whether or not you think it’s “interesting”. Are you new to royal watching or something? Bea is the Queen’s granddaughter and a princess. She was always going to have this wedding.

      • Nic919 says:

        Most people don’t know the difference between Eugenie and Beatrice. Ask a normal person on the street. Even brits won’t know. They aren’t important.

  6. Ash. says:

    I can’t wait to see how William and Kate end up skipping this wedding. William skipped his cousin Peter’s wedding and made Kate meet the Queen for the first time by herself in a reception line. Anyone smart would not want to be near Andrew and his mess right now.

    • Tessa says:

      I would not be surprised if Harry and Meghan attend.

      • Emmitt says:

        Harry & Meghan will not attend because they will not be invited.

      • Tessa says:

        I think they will be invited or so the spin will say. I think the royals “have to” invite them because they want to portray themselves and “warm” people. If Harry and Meghan don’t show up it will be all on them not the “kind” royals.

  7. Zapp Brannigan says:

    Princess Beatrice has watched with sadness as her father Prince Andrew was forced to give up royal duties revealed to be an abusive POS, fixed it for ya!

    Hopefully Pizza Express, Woking can give the happy couple a discount on the catering as the bride is a loyal customer.

  8. Eleonor says:

    This is so out if touch.
    And sorry but Beatrice is also pushing, I don’t believe for a second that she doesn’t want this. She is the one, with her sister repeating she is a “blood princess”.

    • I think stories over the years show that Beatrice is very much as self serving and greedy as her parents. She is also very much in thraw of her BLOOD PRINCESS status.

      • A says:

        Beatrice basically followed in the footsteps of her parents and essentially became another glorified shady influence peddler.

    • Juniper says:

      I believe they were the ones to change the order of precedence when Kate married William. They couldn’t stand having to curtsy to a commoner.

      • A says:

        I thought that happened after Camilla married Charles and Anne threw a fit about the prospect of having to curtsy to Camilla? So the Queen amended the rules to make sure that blood princesses take precedence over all others.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It happened with Anne demanding a change because of Diana and Fergie. Anne and Alexandra demanding a change with Camilla.

  9. Q T Hush says:

    Bea needs a new glam squad. Her fiancé is prettier in pictures than she is. I know it’s low to go there but I want brush her hair and wipe off the raccoon eyes every time I see her. Where the he’ll is Fergie lol

    • It’sJustBlanche says:

      She’s a mess and she needs some help. With all that money there’s no excuse going out like that.

    • Sass says:

      I agree. I always think the same thing. She is not blessed with good genes to begin with and then you’ve got all the rest. Child needs a stylist.

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        ALL of the York women desperately need stylists (clothes, hair, makeup). You can count on one hand the number of times all of them stepped out looking “good”. And yes, Bea got hit the hardest with the Windsor stick (with her resemblance to Queen Victoria, she is just not attractive). Eugenie is pretty, but also can’t dress her figure to save her life.

        Money does not equal taste.

    • Chloe says:

      Yikes, Fergie is even messier! She never looked great compared to Diana, which wasn’t her fault, but after the divorce, all the scandals and whatever she’s done to her face, she looks terrible. You’d think all that money could pay for better skin care.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Fergie looked really good right around when she got pregnant with Eugenie. She had slimmed down, gotten rid of the bows, and started doing her hair differently. Her tour outfits for their Canada tour that year (when she was about 6 weeks pregnant) were some of her best.

    • Karen says:

      That side profile picture shows her as the royal that is the image of Victoria.

  10. OriginalLala says:

    They just keep showing us their racist, classist asses….ugh.

    • Snappyfish says:

      I have a friend who works at Westminster & she said that a divorcee cannot be married there (or at St.Pauls) which is why the Sussexes wed at Windsor. It is the wedding spot for the “lesser royals” however I have never seen Harry as a lesser. His father & brother will be King. As far as these 2 go, no one cares, I have said all along I get a Lord Snowden vibe from him. While I have a modicum of sympathy for the York girls because they have the crappiest of parents, I could care less about either of them or their wedding & am aghast at how obtuse The Queen has been shown to be seen

      • notasugarhere says:

        The day they announced the engagement, the Westminster Abbey spokesperson confirmed Harry and Meghan would allowed to marry at Westminster Abbey. Also said they’d be free to marry at St Paul’s if they wanted to.

        ‘But the couple will be able to follow in the footsteps of the Queen and Prince Philip after the historic church confirmed the American actress’s former marriage would not bar her from marrying there.

        A spokesman for Westminster Abbey said: “The Abbey follows the General Synod Ruling of 2002. Since then it has been possible for divorced people to be married in the Church of England.”’

      • Tessa says:

        Charles and Camilla got married in a civil ceremony they did not have A Church of England wedding ceremony, but a Church Blessing. Harry and Meghan did get the Church Ceremony. Perhaps Charles and Camilla had the blessing instead because both were divorced people plus Camilla was the other woman in the first marriage of Charles. I wonder if Harry and Meghan did ask for a London ceremony and it was spun that they didn’t.

      • Original Jenns says:

        Same about the sympathy. It sucks that they ended up with who they did, but they were born on third base. And if their only complaints are that their parents’ activities and crimes won’t allow them to run home, too bad. I know money doesn’t buy happiness but their privilege is enough to find their own path.

      • Snappyfish says:

        @notasugarhere. Divorced people yes. But this was a Royal wedding. Which had Church of England implications. I think the major issue was that The Cambridge’s wed at Westminster & Harry would never have been given St. Paul’s which is considered higher (where Charles & Diana were wed) Windsor is gorgeous & lovely. I am guessing the Sussexes married where they chose & it was lovely all the way around.

      • TBluex says:

        I would think the Royals try to avoid weddings/funerals at Westminster or St Paul’s except for past/future Kings/Queens because of the security/logistical nightmare of trying to shut down London. Sure, Andrew and Sarah were married in London, but that was the 80’s, and even though the IRA was active – the repercussions from that type of attack would have been devastating for them.
        Beatrice is probably just low enough in the line of succession that security won’t be a huge issue and with no public carriage ride (which she has said she doesn’t want), the disruption to traffic and such will be minimal.

      • A says:

        @Snappyfish, tbf, I do believe the Cambridges marrying at Westminster was in question at the time because William was and still is second in line to the throne. Some folks in the press assumed he’d be getting married at Windsor as well, and were surprised that they decided on Westminster.

        Charles was married in St. Paul’s because of the sheer number of guests that they invited. They needed space to accommodate them all, and they didn’t have that space in Westminster. Charles was Prince of Wales, and his wedding was attended by multiple reigning monarchs/first in lines to the throne from all over Europe. They couldn’t fit them all in at Westminster. St. Paul’s has never been used as a royal wedding venue prior to this, and it hasn’t been used since. Westminster is generally used by children of the reigning monarch, and the St. George’s Chapel is used by everyone else who’s kind of closely related to the RF.

      • notasugarhere says:

        snappyfish, Westminster Abbey agreed to marry them. They also stated they could get married at St Paul’s if they want to. No matter what insider info you think you have? The official spokesperson for Westminster Abbey disagrees with you.

        The Church of England was founded so a randy king could divorce his wife and marry his mistress. It is not a bastion of wedded morality.

        The former Archbishop of Canterbury was the one who urged Charles and Camilla to marry, and wrote about how their love had lasted years. That Christianity was about forgiveness. The other woman scenario, as Tessa wrote, is why they didn’t have a Church of England wedding. They had the huge blessing service, 850 people, at which they expressed their sins.

      • Snappyfish says:

        Notasugarhere. I didn’t meant to state I have inside info. My friend Claire runs the Westminster Institute & is there every day. Her comment was simply they don’t like to have divorced couples marry there. There are exceptions made, of course. It’s isn’t all that easy to get married there in the first place. So I’m guessing they can be choosy. I’m sure Harry could marry wherever he wished.

  11. Sofia says:

    I’m guessing this is all PR. These weddings are huge PR drives and while everyone is still in the “high” of the wedding, they’ll quietly introduce and announce the York girls as working royals

    • Ali says:

      I don’t think Charles will ever allow the york sisters to be working royals.

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        Lawd, I sure hope not

      • Emmitt says:

        The Queen will introduce them as working royals. If that’s what the Queen wants, that’s what the Queen will get. Charles can strip them after he becomes King but if the Yorks want the girls as working royals, they need to strike now, while it’s hot and while the Queen is still on the throne.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If the Queen always got what she wanted against Charles, the York sisters would already be working royals. Charles is going to fight tooth-and-nail against letting Andrew back in or ever allowing B&E to be taxpayer-funded.

      • Tessa says:

        They would have a short tenure if the Queen lets them work. Charles will put a stop to it once he takes over.

      • Emmitt says:

        That was when Charles was expected to have both his sons as working royals. Now one of the sons and his wife have exited the building and they need two more hands. William & Kate are not going to do more (they can’t manage what they do have) and Sophie cannot and should not be expected to add a whole lot more to her place. Enter: Beatrice & Eugenie.

      • A says:

        I think Charles would much prefer Harry and Meghan come back rather than introduce Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals.

  12. Bren says:

    Harry’s decision to step back and move his family far away looks even more justified by the day.

    • Pineapple says:

      No kidding Bren! No kidding.

    • Liz version 700 says:

      That is the comment of the day. This family is a mess anyone would want to leave…. then add the toxic press. I have sections of my family that I get along better with from a distance… Harry apparently does too.

  13. Toot says:

    She isn’t getting a carriage ride is she?

    If she does, those Brits that loved talking about the cost of the Sussex wedding, but ignore all the money they brought in, are going to get royally screwed with this one and I see no profit for that country,

    Aww, it’s what that island deserves, so go all out Beatrice.

  14. Enn says:

    So it looks like just the reception would be at BP? The morning one? I see no mention of the actual ceremony.

    I don’t see where this is saying that Bea is getting the Will and Kate special.

    • MJM says:

      Yes what is the actual wedding venue? Westminster Abbey isn’t mentioned.

    • Cerys says:

      Exactly. It is only the reception that is being held at BP. Nothing has been said about the venue for the ceremony. It is not likely to be a big show at Westminster Abbey. Rumours are that a smaller church used by the royals or the military will be used.

      • ShazBot says:

        I bet it will be St. James, or whatever that church beside BP George was christened at. I wonder how big it is though. I feel like Bea would have a GUEST LIST.

      • Lady D says:

        According to an above poster, her sister had 850 guests at her wedding. If she wants to outdo her sister, the guest list is probably massive. Who even knows that many people they would want at their wedding? Even if they only invited couples, that’s still over 400 of them.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There are plenty of churches in London. Lady Sarah was married at St Stephen Walbrook. A former poster on here, LAK or bluhare, was advocating for Harry and Meghan to marry at St Martin in the Fields.

  15. heygingersnaps says:

    how tone deaf of dear old liz but unfortunately par for the course for her.

  16. liriel says:

    People are already complaining about the cost but poor Beatrice had to postpone her wedding again. All because of the father she had no control of. Everyone looks at her as his daughter. I don’t like her but she was unlucky.

    • A says:

      It sucks, but it’s not like she has no options. She can still have a great wedding. The reason the Yorks are pissed off is because they expected a public spectacle with all the stops and are angry they aren’t getting what they feel they “deserve” because of what Andrew did. They want the bump of good publicity that comes with a wedding of this nature, and the Queen is helping them out on that front by hosting a reception at BP, which sends a message that her sympathies are with the Yorks. Given the fact that she’s been photographed with Andrew as a show of support for him, we can reasonably read the reception at BP for Beatrice as another way of demonstrating to the public that she doesn’t care about the rule of law, or justice, or the fact that her son has to answer for himself.

  17. Gabby says:

    How utterly disgusting. So, pedo Andy and grifter Sarah are going to be front and center for a posh, all-out wedding?
    I feel sorry for Beatrice, but this is going to be the cherry on top of the ashes of the House of Windsor. If they actually go through with some huge spectacle, the fallout is going to be big.

  18. Melissa says:

    I think it’s about not having Prince Pedo host the party. Generally the royal parent(s) host the reception. Charles hosted W&K and H&M’s receptions. TQ is hosting Bea’s instead of Andy. It may actually be a move to keep him in the background.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Melissa, Your comment makes a lot sense. If all takes place at Buck House than it is seen as QEII throwing the shindig.

    • Becks1 says:

      For Will and Kate and Harry/Meghan, the queen hosted the lunchtime reception (at BP for W/K, at Windsor for H/M) and then Charles hosted the evening reception. I don’t know the specifics of Eugenie’s bc I honestly didn’t care that much lol, but she did have that circus the day after supposedly. But I cant recall if she had the luncheon and then the evening reception as well?

      So here I’m not sure if there is just going to be one reception, or if there will still be two and both will be at BP?

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        I remember Eugenie changed into a blush rose coloured boobylicious dress after the wedding…..

      • notasugarhere says:

        They had a whole weekend of events, including a day of food trucks at Royal Lodge iirc.

    • A says:

      I mean, no offence, but couldn’t Edo’s family host the reception instead? I’m not the type of person who adheres to strict gender rules when it comes to who does what at a wedding, but him and his family seem like they’re in a much better position to do that than the Queen or Andrew.

  19. Rapunzel says:

    Note The Fail says, “Prince Andrew was forced to give up royal duties for an unspecified time” Unspecified time, y’all. They are desperate to bring him back.

  20. Ainsley7 says:

    Harry and Meghan got a wedding in Windsor because that is what non-heirs get. Public weddings in Windsor. Keyword being public. Beatrice isn’t having a public wedding. It’s going to be more along the lines of Zara’s. Just some pap shots outside the church and some formal pictures later. She’s getting less than Harry and Meghan. Literally all the Royals prefer Windsor over BP. It’s so much nicer for a wedding. It’s what Will and Kate wanted but were told no because theirs was a semi-state wedding. Beatrice is getting it because she can’t have the normal wedding in Windsor. They’re trying to make her feel better about not getting what she wants.

    • Bros says:

      Ainsley, what does she want and why can’t she have it?

      • Ainsley7 says:

        She wants a wedding in Windsor and she isn’t getting it because it’s not going to be a public wedding. For one thing, Windsor is more costly to secure than London. They aren’t televising the wedding and they aren’t inviting people from her charities and such to stand outside. Andrew’s behavior has made that impossible. So, they can’t justify the security costs involved with a Windsor wedding. Security costs won’t be nearly so bad at one of the Royal chapels in London and no big deal at all at BP. BP isn’t open to the public like Windsor is.

    • MaryContrary says:

      Thank you for the voice of reason.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There is no such thing as a ‘semi-state’ wedding. William made that up as an excuse as to why he didn’t bother planning anything for the foreign royal attendees and didn’t invite the US president. The Queen had to step in and do a separate reception at BP for the foreign royals, a reception without the newly-married couple.

      Peter and Autumn married at Windsor, complete with carriage ride. So did Edward and Sophie, with carriage ride. At the time, E&S were not expected to be working royals.

      • Hope says:

        And he didn’t invite any of the leadership of the Labour Party. That was a little controversy but the semi-state wedding excuse was given rather than the obvious which is William is conservative and the family didn’t care about the optics.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        William wanted a smaller Windsor wedding like H&M. Calling it Semi-state and basically letting them out of entertaining all VIP guests was the awkward compromise.

      • MissM says:

        Peter and Autumn had a carriage ride but it wasnt exactly like Harry or Eugenies weddings. They took the carriage straight from the chapel back to the main castle, there were no crowds or going through the town.

    • Hope says:

      Wasn’t Peter Philip’s wedding at Windsor? That wasn’t public. Neither was the wedding of Princess Michael’s daughter which I think was also at Windsor? There’s no designation that a public wedding is held at Windsor.

      It’s not going to be televised but it’s the Yorks and they are all about showing off their connection to the Queen so they’re having the reception at Buckingham Palace.

  21. TheOriginalMia says:

    The wedding isn’t at Westminster. More than likely the wedding will take place at a chapel inside the palace, then the reception in one of the ballrooms. This actually reduces security costs since it’ll be behind palace walls. There won’t be a balcony kiss. There won’t be a parade or carriage ride. I don’t see the big deal. Beatrice deserves a nice wedding and shouldn’t be punished for being Andy’s daughter.

    • Doobie says:

      Far too sensible Mia

    • Kristina says:

      I’ll be bummed if there isn’t any tv coverage. I kind of like getting up early and watching a live tiara wedding with my girls. They’re young and think it’s so cool. We watched H&M and E&J, and I know we’d like one more. I even got them juice in tea cups and European biscuits 🙂

    • notasugarhere says:

      There are plenty of churches in London that could be used.

      Ultimately nobody ‘deserves’ a nice wedding. They may like having a huge, expensive, useless affair but deserve it?

      Beatrice is the daughter of pedophile rapist of trafficked underage girls. She needs to recognize, as long as she keeps her close relationship with her father and doesn’t speak out against his actions? The sins of the father are being visited upon the daughter. Just like Eugenie needs to wise up and separate from the human trafficking charity. She’s only bringing them down via the association with Andrew.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        Andrew is trash. The York sisters are not. They each deserve to have a wedding that makes them happy. No reason Bea should wear a scarlet letter for the actions of her father. I’m also not going to judge her if she doesn’t cut off her toxic father. It’s a difficult thing to do. Not many have the strength to do it.

      • Doobie says:

        Again Mia, far too sensible. 😉

      • Soupie says:

        And let’s not forget that Beatrice was allowed (forced?) into the company of Jeffrey Epstein. God knows what happened to her, many times over. Disgusting pigs. Yes, she does deserve a nice wedding.

      • Nic919 says:

        While it’s not fair that Beatrice can’t get the spotlight like she expected it’s also not fair that Andrew’s victims have to deal with the trauma of being sex trafficked.

        Seriously skewered priorities here.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No one ‘deserves’ a huge, expensive wedding. If she wanted a nice wedding? She should pay for all of it herself, have it outside the UK, and then she can invite her rapist father. By continuing to align with her father, his sins do get to be visited on her.

        Agreed, Nic919. Seriously skewed priorities here. Daddy rapes trafficked children, but gets away with it because of diplomatic immunity and the Queen covering it up. But gee, let Beatrice have her pretty wedding because she wants one.

    • A says:

      Beatrice has plenty of options for a nice wedding with her family, and her grandma has plenty of options to demonstrate her love and affection for her granddaughter without having to host a reception at BP. If this is a compromise to keep Andrew out of the spotlight, that’s fine, but overall, it still looks incredibly bad. It sucks that Beatrice has to deal with the fallout from her father’s nasty behaviour, but one easy way I can see for them to deal with all of this is to just not publicize their wedding at all. Have Edo and his family shoulder some of the hosting/reception duties. It seems that Beatrice’s definition of a “nice wedding” includes some receiving some measure of positive publicity as well as flexing the trappings of royalty, neither of which are necessary. Plenty of people get married without either of those things, and they still had nice weddings.

  22. line says:

    Just a question for those who live in London; whether their wedding is right in the heart of London for example at St. Paul’s Cathedral and the reception at Buckigham Palace. It will take security places so close part of the road. For a royal minor whose majority of people ignore the identity and whose father is linked to a case of pedopholia is this really a good idea?

    • Eliza_ says:

      Doubtfully any church that large or iconic

      St Stephens, Queens Chapel at St James, St Margaret’s…. etc

  23. LindaS says:

    Commenters were saying how great Harry and Meghans wedding was at the time. Now all of a sudden it wasnt great. Make up your mind people.

  24. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Abolish the lot of them. Pack One and One’s Family off to Svalbard.
    Completely uninterested in the chinless, so-inbred-they-produce-balls-of-hair-and-teeth chimeras that mate with themselves, taxpayer sponging grifters. H&M were the only saving grace in the whole toxic, sordid mess that is ‘our’ Royal Family

    • Doobie says:

      Now tell us what you really think

    • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

      Now tell us how you REALLY feel! 😜😂. (jk) 😊

    • A says:

      The fact that people in the Queen’s immediate circle have the audacity to sneer at people like Kate Middleton or Meghan Markle because they’re “common” and not posh or aristocratic is remarkable. Then again, all that inbreeding means that biology inevitably tends to abolish royal families and lineages without any need for a revolution.

  25. Tashiro says:

    She looks great in that outfit with the copper skirt. I would look great in that outfit too 🙂

  26. Dee says:

    Beatrice should go all in on the Queen Victoria cosplay. That’s all I’ve got.

  27. Qwerty says:

    Reportedly having to delay the announcement (and the wedding?) again. She’s not getting any younger. She’s going to be denied the chance to have children if they keep delaying it.

    Vegas, sweetheart, Vegas. Or have the kids out of wedlock. It would serve the family right.

    • Sofia says:

      Oh for god sakes. She’s 31 not 51. She can still have children. Kate and Meghan both had kids when they were 36/37. The Queen and Sophie Wessex (albeit with difficulties) had kids in their early 40s

      It’s 2020 not 1920. Women can have kids past the age of 35

    • Emilia says:

      What a weird comment. She’s 31, not 40, she’s got plenty of time.

    • Tessa says:

      I think she will want children right away.

      • Anon says:

        But Edo has a son already (and he’s adorable too) and while she may want kids PDQ but that doesn’t mean that Edo does/wants/will agree to more children. I try not to speculate on any couple’s want/need/desire to procreate but I personally don’t see Edo in a rush, I would assume he wants to enjoy what royal fruits might be available (or left) to him connections wise.

        Bea, in IMHO, wants it all and all it of PDQ……I feel, and again this my own opinion, she might like too and/or want to beat Eug to the hospital with baby #1.

        Bea is a UK blood princess…..what that means in terms of Brexit, her father’s ongoing issues (and I guess her mother’s as well) and Megixt are circumstances beyond her control, unfortunately.

  28. Eliza_ says:

    Lots of “lesser” royal weddings occurred in London: Sarah Chatto for example. It won’t be the Abbey like Will/Kate. It will be a smaller church.

  29. Jessica says:

    Does anyone care about this dumb wedding at this point?

  30. Justme says:

    Most really minor royals and their children get married in London. She’s not getting a St.Pauls or a Westminster Abbey wedding. Like the Duke of Gloucester’s daughters were wed in Queen’s Chapel, St. James Palace. Or she might get the chapel in Buckingham Palace – not public at all. Or the Chapel Royal at St James. It’s not going to be a big public wedding. This is not a “diss” to Harry and Meghan.

  31. liriel says:

    Honestly, she was born lucky but she was always the odd one. Not pretty enough, “wicked” cinderella sister stories, then she can’t get married, it’s delayed and still everyone would be talking about this wedding with focus not being on her. Pedo is not her fault.

  32. Cosmo says:

    I don’t understand why the media is trying to make these two a thing. They haven’t done anything of interest yet except have a pedophile for a father.

  33. CK says:

    The Queen has managed to undo all the goodwill that “The Crown” bought her. No wonder Netflix is ending it after 5 seasons. You don’t want to film a season 6 of her in her full end of life nastiness with her and Phillip one sneeze away from a royal funeral. You’d have to scrap it after her brand is whitewashed after death.

    • Doobie says:

      The Crown was fictionalised you know. 😆

      Amazes me how, here too, for 60 years of her reign she could do no wrong, but now…..

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        Oh she did plenty wrong … as a Commonwealth country, Canada paid attention when she ignored Princess Di’s death, and she ignored that mining catastrophe (many lives lost) and she ignored the abominable “reporting” regarding the feeding frenzy against the Duchess of Sussex. So @Doobie, she’s done wrong, and been called out on it, just maybe not quite as loudly as now because…social media …now OUR voices are heard, not just ‘The Cartel’s”……

  34. What. . .now? says:

    And still no one cares.

    I will look at pix if they show up here, but other than that, I’m not seeking out anything related to Bea’s wedding, because again, who cares?

    Andrew and Fergie are going to make this day about THEM in any way shape or form. So, I don’t need to see coverage of a pedo and his ridiculous money grubbing grifter of the nth degree ex-wife.

    PASS.

  35. Jumpingthesnark says:

    I guess the Mozz is staying in then…… at this point he is the least shady of the lot of them. Wonder if he realizes, the BRF will throw him under the bus too, just a matter of when. Beware, my dude….

  36. kerwood says:

    I agree with those that say that the York sisters shouldn’t be punished for being a sex offender’s daughters. I DO think that their laziness and rudeness at Meghan and Harry’s wedding SHOULD be taken into account though.

    Where are the British taxpayers who were ready to man the barricades every time Meghan wore a new pair of shoes? How much will the people have to pay to get this woman married to this guy when the two of them have enough money to pay for a very nice wedding.

    Harry was the son of the future king. Beatrice is the daughter of a spare spare who is also an accused sex offender. She shouldn’t have to stand in line at city hall but why aren’t her parents shelling out for this?

  37. morrigan01 says:

    Yeah, you know what? Put me down for not believing it. Her sister didn’t even get a large Westminster Abbey wedding, and she really could have if this is all because Andrew is the Queen’s favorite. Because that was all before this Andrew mess became an international story.

    It’s true, the Windsors suck at PR, but even I don’t think they suck this much. Because they will never get enough international visitors who would attend such a wedding to fill that church given the Andrew news and the international focus on it. Especially if Andrew even shows his face to walk her down the aisle, I don’t think people want to be caught being in his presence in any way.

    Know what I think? I think this is the Daily Mail *wanting* her to have a big London wedding to boost their Royal News and clicks. News and countdown to such a wedding would do that. There is probably pressure on the Yorks to do so from the Press, not the Queen or anyone else in the palace.

    • Justme says:

      Nobody is saying she is having a big Westminster Abbey or St. Paul’s wedding. She is probably going to have a wedding at one of the private chapels of the Royal family in London – or a smaller church. This is a fuss about nothing.

  38. Chickaletta says:

    American looking in from the outside, but does anyone else feel like Beatrice is the Jan Brady of the royal family?

  39. sj says:

    Not everything revolves around H&M. Let them live in peace. The Queen can do damn well what she pleases and maybe in this case that means giving her granddaughter a BP reception.

  40. Chrissy says:

    I think it’s more distraction… the royals need a win and everyone loves a wedding….

  41. paddingtonjr says:

    While I feel for B&E and don’t feel they should be painted with the same brush as their parents, this is very tone deaf. I do thing Beatrice should get the wedding she wants, but now is not the time. I think they should postpone or, at the very least, have a small ceremony now and maybe a bigger celebration later.

    I do have to wonder what this means for the Wessex children; they are quite a bit younger than the rest of the cousins and nowhere near university, much less marriage, but they are “blood” royalty. They don’t have the P&P titles and probably won’t be working royals. Neither of their parents seem to be pushing the “blood” angle and seem content to be the utility players of the BRF, but how the York weddings go might create an issue later, especially if neither TQ or PP are still alive.

    • Annie says:

      The Wessex kids will probably do the standard upper class thing: marry in a country church, and then a reception at Bagshot Park, where they grew up. An aristocratic wedding, but not a royal one. Even if they marry at Windsor, it will be a firmly private affair with limited media access. I don’t think they will expect any public interest, their parents have made a wise choice and prepared them for a life as private citizens in the periphery of the BRF.

      That’s where Andrew and Sarah have failed; they have consistently pushed the ‘blood princess’ narrative, and so their daughters have ended up in the awkward position of fully identifying as royals while the British public doesn’t give a toss about them. Eugenie’s wedding, with all it’s pomp and grandour, generated very little public interest, even though it was televised and they did the full Windsor carriage ride. That is bound to create some kind of identity crisis.

  42. starryfish29 says:

    It feels like this engagement happened years ago, I honestly forgot about these two. I’m surprised that it’s still happening, but I suppose we’ll see.

  43. Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

    Dang people. She isn’t guilty of anything except being the daughter of Andrew. She’s apparently had to delay the wedding announcement twice now due to him and the Sussexit drama. So Grandma is trying to make it up to her. No biggie.🤷‍♀️

  44. Dottie says:

    Harry could have married in London and chose not too. The Queen is actually supportive and her and Harry were close. Bea is getting married in London, it will not be televised, it won’t be in a big Church the reception will be at Buckingham Palace that doesn’t mean there will be a balcony scene. Edo has a child and it is kind of hazy when he and Bea got together. Andrew has stuffed her up she has had to keep putting this off due to him and Harry and Meghan. I think they will go to her wedding but it won’t be like her sisters or their wedding. There hasn’t even been an engagement interview. We will see pictures and probably get a few glimpses of the wedding if it is outside Buckingham Palace. Which we got for Zara and Peter.

  45. khaveman says:

    I don’t convict her for her father’s alleged wrongdoing. If the queen gives it a green light, then she should have her wedding. Go for it and forget the nay-sayers!

  46. I’m so over the Royal debauchery. I can’t imagine why Brits are willing to do without, while some petty withering old woman sits on her jewels and crowns. How many people could one of her baubles feed? I was excited back in the Diana Days because it felt fresh and as if they were really going to accomplish real change for the impoverished Brits. Seeing Diana sit with those AIDS patients brought me to tears. But this whole Andrew sex ring and TQ circling around him, while it appears Megan was left to fend off the wolves, with no support from TQ or Prince Billy. His poor wife Kate looks medicated with a permanent veneer smile. I’m rooting for Harry and Megan and I hope they accomplish great things.

    • missskitttin says:

      they shunned Megan and Harry. Ditched them without a cent to their name.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Erm, no. Harry has millions in inheritance, Meghan has the money she earned. The royals are still supporting them financially now, with Harry and Meghan having the goal of wanting to be financially independent as quickly as possible.

  47. missskitttin says:

    They are really proud of Andrew and want to highlight it.

  48. knowitall says:

    If this wedding indeed happens, I wonder if Meghan and Harry will attend. I’m sad it won’t be televised (again, if it happens).