Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie 1: Discussion Until 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A degree in history and history of ideas is not totally incompatible with a career in fashion, but being a teacher is much more consistent with that degree. I keep wondering what it is that Mr. Clark, her boyfriend, does for a living. Anyone know?
 
Once the Queen, Prince Phillip and the Queen's cousins become
too aged to perform their royal engagements the 'firm' could have space
for Beatrice and Eugenie. I think they should have that choice.
After all, Prince Charles does not have many children and Charles' first cousins
have chosen other fields of work, as have his in-laws (barring Sophie).
Peter and Zara Phillips are independently working.
Louise and James are too young and further removed from the throne.

Prince Harry and Prince William might continue to be heavily involved in the
forces ... only available part time for public appearances.
To maintain contact with any other career AND complete 220 royal engagements per year is a big ask.

The only career that William has the luxury of maintaining is that of future monarch. If the Windsors are getting bad press now, they cannot begin to imagine the bad press if William as POW continues to have an army career and his wife continues to play housewife while being supported by monies from the Duchy of Cornwall and the monrach has to redistrbuite some of his civil list payments to pay for neices performing royal duties....
 
When the DoE retires or passes on, Camilla will have to take on most of his duties-as spouse of the future King. Which means Catherine will take on a lot of Camilla's duties.
 
I hope these girls have careers.Not take on royal duties every year for the rest of their lives.If I were a royal I would get a job because,It will make me happy and,I wont feel bad about spending tax payer money on everything I have.I wonder how royals like Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine feel about not working but still getting a check that comes out of the people.Yes I know they do charity but sometimes thats not enough.

Thats just my opinion.
 
Beatrice and Eugenie get no money from the taxpayer. If they get a job after university than that is fair enough, but they need to start doing royal duties at some point.
 
Beatrice and Eugenie get no money from the taxpayer. If they get a job after university than that is fair enough, but they need to start doing royal duties at some point.

If they don't start early I doubt they'll do it at all. Seems like the issue is (relatively) close to being solved so either they hit the ground running or don't race at all.
 
Beatrice and Eugenie get no money from the taxpayer. If they get a job after university than that is fair enough, but they need to start doing royal duties at some point.


It has been reported as recently as last month that they have been told that they will not be doing royal duties.

If they aren't going to do it now - in their 20s - then it would be totally unfair to them to expect them to start doing it in their 40s after having had a satisfying career.

Either they spend their lives on royal duties or they spend their lives having their own careers and the lastest information is that it will be careers.

Charles has made it clear that he doesn't see a need for as many working royals as currently do that work and I see no reason for him to change his mind.

The Gloucesters and Kents will probably continue for another 10+ years each, with Charles' siblings having another 30+ years in them (maybe a few less for Anne). By then William's children should be entering the firm to take over from their great-aunts and great-uncles - thus no need for the York girls at all.
 
It has been reported as recently as last month that they have been told that they will not be doing royal duties.

If they aren't going to do it now - in their 20s - then it would be totally unfair to them to expect them to start doing it in their 40s after having had a satisfying career.

Either they spend their lives on royal duties or they spend their lives having their own careers and the lastest information is that it will be careers.

Charles has made it clear that he doesn't see a need for as many working royals as currently do that work and I see no reason for him to change his mind.

The Gloucesters and Kents will probably continue for another 10+ years each, with Charles' siblings having another 30+ years in them (maybe a few less for Anne). By then William's children should be entering the firm to take over from their great-aunts and great-uncles - thus no need for the York girls at all.


I wonder if they will keep their princess titles after they marry?

I am glad to hear that they seem to be giving the girls some guidance as to their future. Also if the Queen decides not to help fund them then it will be hard for them to carryout royal duties. By that I mean that I have heard that Andrew, Edward, Anne and probably some others get some money from thee Queen's private account to help them out because they do not get accces to government money.
 
I wonder if they will keep their princess titles after they marry?

I am glad to hear that they seem to be giving the girls some guidance as to their future. Also if the Queen decides not to help fund them then it will be hard for them to carryout royal duties. By that I mean that I have heard that Andrew, Edward, Anne and probably some others get some money from thee Queen's private account to help them out because they do not get accces to government money.

As they are princesses of the blood royal, I imagine that they will retain the title of Princess for their lifetime no matter who they end up marrying.

As far as the Queen's children and funding, I do believe that they are covered for any expenses related to the duties/engagements that they carry out for the crown. I imagine that for some reason either Beatrice and Eugenie do any kind of a royal duty, the same would apply to them.
It just seems likely that both girls are not to be expected to do any royal duties at all and should seek careers privately for themselves.
 
Unless new LPs are issued restricting HRH to only the children of the eldest child of the monarch then there is no reason for them to lose the Princess title on marriage. Princess Akexandra, also a granddaughter of a monarch didn't.

That being said I can see Charles issuing such LPs.
 
Unless new LPs are issued restricting HRH to only the children of the eldest child of the monarch then there is no reason for them to lose the Princess title on marriage. Princess Akexandra, also a granddaughter of a monarch didn't.

That being said I can see Charles issuing such LPs.

I agree with you on this one. If Beatrice and Eugenie are settled in careers and/or married when Charles ascends the throne, I can very well see him issuing new LP and really downsizing the royal family. It may be very likely at that time that it will be obvious that B&E are not even needed to be CoS and therefore have no reason to retain the title Princess.
I also expect that Andrew would be quite upset about it too.

Who knows? Maybe the girls will get the "big break" from Oprah and renounce their titles having to make a choice between what's accepted as "royal protocol" and the bright lights of the entertainment/fashion world? Ok.. Ok.. I'm dreaming and should have been in bed a long time ago. :D
 
As time rolls by the York Princesses will become the cousins of the Monarch and they will assume a position like the Gloucesters and the Kents. I am certain that there is more than enough call for the Royals to assume more duties so they can certainly go in that direction.
 
I agree with you on this one. If Beatrice and Eugenie are settled in careers and/or married when Charles ascends the throne, I can very well see him issuing new LP and really downsizing the royal family. It may be very likely at that time that it will be obvious that B&E are not even needed to be CoS and therefore have no reason to retain the title Princess.
I also expect that Andrew would be quite upset about it too.

Who knows? Maybe the girls will get the "big break" from Oprah and renounce their titles having to make a choice between what's accepted as "royal protocol" and the bright lights of the entertainment/fashion world? Ok.. Ok.. I'm dreaming and should have been in bed a long time ago. :D


For Beatrice not to be needed as a CoS The Queen will need to live to be 107 - assuming that Kate has a child next year - as that child will have to be 21 before Beatrice isn't needed. Charles will also have to be alive for another 23 years (to 86) - assuming that Kate has a second child the following year. If they have two or three years between children add those years on and if they wait a couple of years before having children then both the Queen and Charles have to live those years as well on top of the 22 I have already indicated.

The CoS are the next four adults in line of succession over 21 (except in the case of the heir apparent who takes on that role at 18).

There is very little chance that Beatrice won't be serving as a CoS at some time - her father also has to live all those years as do William and Harry.

If William and Kate have a child next year that child won't turn 21 until 2033 and a second child born the following year would be 21 in 2034. That is the earliest years in which Beatrice won't be needed as a CoS.
 
As time rolls by the York Princesses will become the cousins of the Monarch and they will assume a position like the Gloucesters and the Kents. I am certain that there is more than enough call for the Royals to assume more duties so they can certainly go in that direction.


However the reports coming from BP are that the girls have been told that they won't be needed and if this is true then they can live normal lives away from the endless rounds of making small talk with people they will never see again.

The idea, put forward more than a decade ago, is that the number of royals will be reduced and by extension the number of things that royals do will also be reduced.
 
Would it take an act of Parliament to change the number of CoS's that are required? Or is that up to the Queen/King too? Or do both have to agree?
 
Would it take an act of Parliament to change the number of CoS's that are required? Or is that up to the Queen/King too? Or do both have to agree?


As the number was defined by legislation it would need to be changed by legislation.

The number was first spelt out in the Regency Act 1937 and confirmed in the Regency Act 1953.

So to answer your question: It would take an Act of Parliament to change the number of CoS's.

As two are required at all times and there are only five currently eligible (Prince Philip is the fifth as the consort of the monarch) limiting to fewer than four also limits family activities e.g. say it is limited to the first two over 21 in Charles' reign he would never be able to go overseas with either of his sons during his reign as both of them would be needed to serve in the UK.
 
The Gloucesters and Kents will probably continue for another 10+ years each, with Charles' siblings having another 30+ years in them (maybe a few less for Anne). By then William's children should be entering the firm to take over from their great-aunts and great-uncles - thus no need for the York girls at all.

I doubt any of them have as long as you predict, tho you never know. I think the Gloucesters and Kents will be retiring in less than 10 years (they're in their early 70s now) and Ann, Andrew and Edward/Sophie might have 20 -25 years.

Who knows what the future will bring for the monarchy. Charles is in his early 60s already. If HM is able to carry out duties - even rarely - for another 10 years, he'll be in his 70s when he takes the throne.

A lot can happen in 10-15 years. It will be interesting.
 
I doubt any of them have as long as you predict, tho you never know. I think the Gloucesters and Kents will be retiring in less than 10 years (they're in their early 70s now) and Ann, Andrew and Edward/Sophie might have 20 -25 years.

Who knows what the future will bring for the monarchy. Charles is in his early 60s already. If HM is able to carry out duties - even rarely - for another 10 years, he'll be in his 70s when he takes the throne.

A lot can happen in 10-15 years. It will be interesting.


Royals don't retire - they might cut back but they work until they die or are incapictated. As long as they are fit enough the Gloucesters and Kents will continue doing what they are able to do into their 80s and 90s, if they live that long and that is another 10 or so years - particularly for the Gloucesters who are younger than the Kents. They would also take the view that if the Queen can do it at 85 so can we and the Duke of Kent is about 10 years younger than the Queen and the others younger still.

Anne easily will go until 85 or longer if she lives that long. To do less would be dereliction of duty on her part in her mind - she is as hidebound to duty as her parents. Edward and Andrew would have even longer left given that Andrew is just 51 and Edward still in his 40s - so 40 years left for them possibly.

An aging royal family with no young ones, outside of Charles' sons being wanted is very much the future - Charles doesn't see a need for the extras and that is also the view of many of the British public - the monarch and spouse, the heir and spouse and the next after that and the rest can fend for themselves - sad for royal watchers but that is the situation - not wanted by the family as part of the family business so having to fend for themselves.

I actually think Charles will be closer to 70 than 70 when he becomes King and that he will himself reign until well into his 90s.

William, on the other hand, I don't think will live into his 80s or 90s - mainly due to the drinking and smoking that he has done and continues to do on occasions as that damage is permanent.
 
Unless new LPs are issued restricting HRH to only the children of the eldest child of the monarch then there is no reason for them to lose the Princess title on marriage. Princess Akexandra, also a granddaughter of a monarch didn't.

That being said I can see Charles issuing such LPs.

I don't think they can lose them at all. Any new rules would apply from that date forward I would assume. How can he strip them of something that they've had since birth?
 
I don't think they can lose them at all. Any new rules would apply from that date forward I would assume. How can he strip them of something that they've had since birth?

As they hold titles by LPs issued by one King another monarch can remove those titles as the Queen did with the LPs in 1996 when she stripped the HRH from both Sarah and Diana after their divorces (notice the date of that LP relates to Diana's divorce and Sarah continued to use HRH from her divorce until those LPs were issued stripping her of that distinction).

If Charles was to tighten the LPs then is it perfectly possible that the girls would be prevailed upon to voluntarily stop using them as well.
 
I don't think they can lose them at all. Any new rules would apply from that date forward I would assume. How can he strip them of something that they've had since birth?

it's been done before, in 1917 I believe, when some of the princesses who were HH rather than HRH became Ladies. I can't remember their names sorry.
 
Code:
I agree with you on this one. If Beatrice and Eugenie are settled in careers and/or married when Charles ascends the throne, I can very well see him issuing new LP and really downsizing the royal family. It may be very likely at that time that it will be obvious that B&E are not even needed to be CoS and therefore have no reason to retain the title Princess.
I also expect that Andrew would be quite upset about it too.

Who knows? Maybe the girls will get the "big break" from Oprah and renounce their titles having to make a choice between what's accepted as "royal protocol" and the bright lights of the entertainment/fashion world? Ok.. Ok.. I'm dreaming and should have been in bed a long time ago. :D

Everyone is making great points about their titles and their futures so thanks. I wonder if they would say no or ask for lesser titles like ladies or something. Then again given the times I am not sure anyone would live the family,unless they marry a Catholic. Who knows maybe that will change.
 
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the BRF over the next decade or so. Stay tuned . . .
 
R
An aging royal family with no young ones, outside of Charles' sons being wanted is very much the future - Charles doesn't see a need for the extras and that is also the view of many of the British public - the monarch and spouse, the heir and spouse and the next after that and the rest can fend for themselves - sad for royal watchers but that is the situation - not wanted by the family as part of the family business so having to fend for themselves.

I actually think Charles will be closer to 70 than 70 when he becomes King and that he will himself reign until well into his 90s.

William, on the other hand, I don't think will live into his 80s or 90s - mainly due to the drinking and smoking that he has done and continues to do on occasions as that damage is permanent.

It's actually hard to predict how long people will live - their parents' longevity isn't necessarily a good predictor. I thought it was, but then I read an article which said genetics doesn't seem to predict longevity very well. It only starts playing a greater role in people whose parents lived to be over 100, and even then, it's not that significant. So given how long the Queen Mother lived, the Queen probably does have a good chance of living quite long, but who really knows about the others?

I find it sad that Charles, and the public, seem to want to cut back the monarchy so much. I feel like once the royal family shrinks to just the monarch and his or her immediate family, the next step is no monarchy at all.
 
it's been done before, in 1917 I believe, when some of the princesses who were HH rather than HRH became Ladies. I can't remember their names sorry.


The example I immediately think of is Princess Patricia, who renounced her Princely Title when she married the The Hon Alexander Ramsay in 1919.
 
As they hold titles by LPs issued by one King another monarch can remove those titles as the Queen did with the LPs in 1996 when she stripped the HRH from both Sarah and Diana after their divorces (notice the date of that LP relates to Diana's divorce and Sarah continued to use HRH from her divorce until those LPs were issued stripping her of that distinction).

If Charles was to tighten the LPs then is it perfectly possible that the girls would be prevailed upon to voluntarily stop using them as well.


Could I just help a bit with this one, Bertie? The LPs were not STRICTLY necessary so far as Sarah was concerned, because she did in fact lose the HRH on her divorce - the reason that the LPs were necessary in her case was because it was necessary to reiterate the position because Sarah was claiming that she was still HRH! In other words they were a clarification.
 
Could I just help a bit with this one, Bertie? The LPs were not STRICTLY necessary so far as Sarah was concerned, because she did in fact lose the HRH on her divorce - the reason that the LPs were necessary in her case was because it was necessary to reiterate the position because Sarah was claiming that she was still HRH! In other words they were a clarification.


I have official invitation sent from BP between the divorce and the LPs which refers to her as HRH - if BP was sending it out then she was still HRH - I take it that BP wouldn't have allowed the invitation to go out with HRH on it if that wasn't the case - it was for an eveing with HRH Sarah, Duchess of York and was also issued by the High Commission here in Australia - it was to my mother who had worked there in the 1940s and was for a reunion at which Sarah was to be the guest of honour - some time after the LPs were issued but the invitation was issued in the time between the divorce and the LPs and was sent from BP to the High Commission and then the High Commission sent them to the invitees.

And of course there was the ongoing discussion about Diana losing the HRH - and that took the LPs to do that - as that was part of the divorce settlement - that she would give it up.
 
It's actually hard to predict how long people will live - their parents' longevity isn't necessarily a good predictor. I thought it was, but then I read an article which said genetics doesn't seem to predict longevity very well. It only starts playing a greater role in people whose parents lived to be over 100, and even then, it's not that significant. So given how long the Queen Mother lived, the Queen probably does have a good chance of living quite long, but who really knows about the others?

I find it sad that Charles, and the public, seem to want to cut back the monarchy so much. I feel like once the royal family shrinks to just the monarch and his or her immediate family, the next step is no monarchy at all.

rmay I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. Start "shrinking" the monarchy, demoting HRH's to Mr/Miss/Mrs and what do you have?? :sad:

I am all for a cutback on ostentation in times of economic hardship, but let's face it...either you want a ROYAL family or a Republic.

It's a slipperly slope to start trying to have it both ways, imo.

BTW...I like and admire the Prince of Wales but his desire for "cutbacks" only seem to apply to other members of the family and not ever himself. Just like the late Queen Mother, he leads an extremely luxurious lifestyle and stubbornly refuses to give up any of his perks.

He reportedly wanted the Earl of Wessex to move out of Bagshot Park because the estate is so huge and costly...but meanwhile he himself only travels by Rolls Royce and throws glittering dinner parties at Highgrove and Clarence House with no cost spared.

I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
rmay I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. Start "shrinking" the monarchy, demoting HRH's to Mr/Miss/Mrs and what do you have?? :sad:

I am all for a cutback on ostentation in times of economic hardship, but let's face it...either you want a ROYAL family or a Republic.

It's a slipperly slope to start trying to have it both ways, imo.

BTW...I like and admire the Prince of Wales but his desire for "cutbacks" only seem to apply to other members of the family and not ever himself. Just like the late Queen Mother, he leads an extremely luxurious lifestyle and stubbornly refuses to give up any of his perks.

He reportedly wanted the Earl of Wessex to move out of Bagshot Park because the estate is so huge and costly...but meanwhile he himself only travels by Rolls Royce and throws glittering dinner parties at Highgrove and Clarence House with no cost spared.

I don't get it.


Charles knows that Edward can't afford Bagshot himself and that if Edward is to continue to live there then that he, Charles and in time William, will have to pick up the tab and he doesn't agree with that idea.

Charles also is very conscious that the public see the vast majority of the royal family as spoungers who do nothing and wants to slim down the family to improve the image - fewer seen to be wasting taxpayers money would assist the image of the family.

With William's attitude as well the BRF will soon be a shadow of the once glorious institution and simply be a nothingness of 'normality' with no glamour or anything else to recommend it e.g. Kate not wanting Ladies in Waiting takes away part of the image of the royal ladies and reduces them to the same as everyone else.

Charles also isn't that close to his brothers and I think a little jealous of the relationship that they had growing up with their parents that he and Anne didn't have because first of, while he was very young, his mother preferred to be in Malta whenever possible with his father and then she became Queen and was away for very long periods of time and then he goes to boarding school but meanwhile the younger brothers are born and enjoy playing in Mummy's study - something he was never allowed to do etc. I think he very much wants the royal family to be Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse and then their children but that the rest can disappear.
 
So Charles's wish for the future of the royal family is partly based on public perception and economics, and partly based on him not being that close to his younger brothers? I guess that makes sense -- sort of like a family held corporation reducing the board of managers in order to save costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom