Royal Gossip
October 22, 2017, 02:32:22 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Princess Eugenie & Jack Brooksbank Relationship  (Read 3093 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2016, 05:18:15 am »

It's called having it both ways, something the younger royals excel at at every opportunity. Modern enough to have it their way, but old fashioned to expect the perks as their rightful due.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2261



« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2016, 08:39:00 am »

I think there is an element of people looking at cohabiting instead of marriage as being a personal choice while monarchy is a security at a national level.

Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3195


« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2016, 11:16:43 am »

It's a "personal choice" but not one that I would recommend. It's not a coincidence that divorce rates have been increasing while cohabitation rates also increase. Unless you're either engaged (committed to marry) or married before you move in together, the odds are not in your favor.

Also, having kids out of wedlock but in a "committed relationship", ~90% of couples break up by the time their first child reaches age 17. If you do get pregnant, I don't recommend a shotgun wedding (unless you were already planning to get married before you found out you were pregnant), but don't wait years after the child is born, either.

Lots of cheating going on, and viewing each other as a trial, you can walk out whenever you want. If they marry late in the relationship (after being together for 5-10+ years), they suddenly feel trapped and usually divorce within a few years. Sharing furniture makes it that much more difficult to break up if/when you realize your partner isn't right for you, because now there's all this furniture to divide up... lots of people stay in relationships much longer than they should because of this, as well as because of the bonding hormones. These things are good during marriage because it encourages you to work things out rather than divorce, but bad during dating because you overlook red flags.

Also, lots of sexism, I've overheard too many conversations of guys talking about their live-in girlfriends, saying they wouldn't marry them even if they got pregnant because "too many beautiful women are willing to put out without marriage". Lots of men view women as objects and there is a slim to none chance that they're faithful.  Lips Sealed
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2005



« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2016, 01:02:09 am »

^ Are these numbers etc based on statistics? Because I have come across statistics that say pretty much the same.
It is okay to not want to marry and not get married, but if someone absolutely wants to, then they better watch to not be strung along and make their significant other commit or move on. That goes for men and women. Which is also why KF is on point when writing against cohabitation. I have come across statistics that state that marriages where couples did not cohabit beforehand fared better than those who did.. In the end it's personal choice and one shouldn't be shamed for whatever choice they make, but if you know what you want, you better stay on track for that goal...
The thing with marriage is though, that in many countries still only spouses have all rights and no matter how long you cohabit, as "partner" you do not have the same rights as a spouse does, so even if "that piece of paper" does not matter to you personally, you should make sure that you have rights, esp when you want to spend the rest of your life with someone and have kids involved as well..
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13157



« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2016, 02:07:13 am »

^All I can speak to are the laws in the US.  If you aren't married, your legal rights are zilch no matter how long you live together. Even if your name is on the deed of a house you buy together, if either one of you has children, the courts will favor the children first. If your life partner is dying, no hospital will allow you visitation without that license (I've seen that and it's brutally painful)  And so on.  California has a limited law but bears no resemblance to a marriage contract.  Of all the contracts the United States issues, the Marriage Contract is the most weighty, immovable, strongest, and most binding contract ever created.  

And you're quite right that living together is all well and good for some but if your goal is lifetime permanence, think long and hard about it and give it an end date or commitment date.  There's something about that license that changes people; that one I do know.  This is not a judgment for those whose laws are different in different countries but I would have a very difficult time supporting a loosely defined arrangement; it's fine for a while to get to know somebody if that's what your plan is, and much easier to bolt, but that's a double-edged sword.  It's also easier for someone to leave you.

There are exceptions to this such as much older people who would lose benefits and the odds of them running off with somebody else are pretty much zero but for young people who want a family, family law truly favors marriage if you're considering children.  It's just my .02.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 02:15:44 am by YooperModerator » Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3195


« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2016, 02:12:04 am »

^^ Yes, they are from statistics I read a few years ago, but I don't remember where they're from off the top of my head.

IMO, cohabiting partners should not have the same rights as married couples. They deliberately chose not to marry. I don't think they should be forced to give the other person half their stuff when they break up. They were never married, it was a relationship of convenience and when it was no longer convenient, they broke up. Simple as that.  dontknow  I think the "common law" marriages are because someone when to court and cried because they felt entitled to half their partner's stuff because they had been together for x amount of years (even they could have walked away at any time, that's how dating works), and the judge felt sorry for them for some reason.  dontknow
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2005



« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2016, 04:56:52 pm »

^^ & ^  thumbsup
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13157



« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2016, 05:26:09 pm »

I've sort of lost track here (^ and ^^ thank you, btw).  Has a wedding date been set and are they officially engaged?  Sorry, just not sure what the status here is.
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2005



« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2016, 07:28:41 pm »

As far as I know it was just a rumour gone wild... Testing the waters (the feeling of the public about this)? Or hinting at him through papers to finally propose? Whatever it is, nothing was made official or I missed it..
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2261



« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2016, 10:28:48 pm »

There has been no engagement announcement.

As Eugenie doesn't need the Queen's permission to marry anymore, due to the changes to the RMA made in the Succession to the Crown Act, it is possible that she could get married and not make any announcement at all as it won't need to go to the Privy Council and be approved as was the case in the past.

There was speculation when Jack went to Balmoral that they were there to 'get permission' except she doesn't need it. The media totally ignored the fact that they were there the weekend of Harry's birthday shooting party on the Balmoral estate and it is more than likely that they were there for that. As Andrew wasn't there is it highly unlikely that Eugenie would have been telling her grandparents about an engagement without her father present.
Logged
HRHOlya
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2005



« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2016, 01:10:18 am »

^ Indeed. She might ask granny out of respect, because she's been bumped off fairly recently and because they are said to be her favourites (don't know of that's true, but if so then esp she'll include granny)... I think all grandkids might ask granny in some way "for permission". Except Willy of course  shifty
Logged
FrederickLouis
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 521



« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2017, 10:54:42 pm »

What do you think of Eugenie and Jack getting married at York Minster? She is Princess Eugenie of York. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRY-jKexRoY
Logged

Really A Baron
FrederickLouis
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 521



« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2017, 10:25:23 pm »

Are Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank delaying their wedding plans because Prince Harry has not had his engagement to Meghan announced yet?     
bye bye bignono bignono  wine wine YouGoGirlsign wed
Logged

Really A Baron
Little light
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 923



« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2017, 10:31:37 pm »

I'd find it odd if it's true. But I do think Zara had to put her own wedding on hold until PW tied the knot, but it didn't affect Zara's brother Peter Phillips from getting married first, did it? flower

And Princess Anne married long before her older brother Charles.

It might just be paper talk though. In all honesty, I don't know FrederickLouis.

Sorry

 flower

A very good point though.
Logged
kolkomilko
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3186



« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2017, 08:56:40 am »

^^ I hope they don't.  bignono
Logged

FrederickLouis
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 521



« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2017, 10:25:00 pm »

Hopefully Eugenie and Jack will figure their wedding plans without being attached to Harry.
Logged

Really A Baron
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6031



« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2017, 06:24:26 am »

if she married at York - where would they hold the reception?
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2261



« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2017, 09:53:04 pm »

Surely there are places in York which can hold 200-300 people for a reception. Remember that the vast majority of those invited to the actual service aren't then invited to the wedding breakfast afterwards when they are marrying into the BRF.

There are also a number of quite wealthy people in and around York who would probably be please to lend their homes to Eugenie and the royals for the reception if asked.

Just because there is no royal palace doesn't mean there is nowhere for the reception.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2017, 01:38:49 am »

Middlethorpe Hall and Spa is a wonderful big old house/hotel at York, and I'm sure that the staff there could host a lovely discreet reception there for Eug and Jack with no trouble at all! Having said that, I cannot see a wedding for these two in York, lovely though it would be. They'll marry in or near London, probably Windsor, IMO.
Logged
kolkomilko
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3186



« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2017, 10:27:34 am »

I am anxious to hear about this wedding.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!