The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #721  
Old 05-07-2011, 03:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Years ago, shortly after their births, there was a discussion of actually
taking away their HRH status as Anne and Edward had chosen not to
have this status for their children and there was a desire for the downsizing of the "royal family".

In hind sight it would have been probably better for the girls so they could
get on with a "normal" upbringing and future life.

Of course the downside, is that when William becomes King the family
would be small and all the royal engagements now that are covered by
the Queen's cousins, etc would have to be reduced.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 05-07-2011, 05:01 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
RMay286 and Duchess of Darwin: I certainly commend your warm hearts toward these girls who are having trouble sorting things out. AND I SO don't agree that they could "never perform on the same stage as Kate." They will never be as beautiful (although Eugenie does have a really lovely face if she were a bit thinner), but if they dress more carefully and tastefully and stay away from the night spots, they would be just fine -- and it would stop the snarking.

Beatrice seems like a really sweet girl and has a great boyfriend. I just wish Andrew would get them some PR help and a good stylist. I think this could help turn perceptions around. Unfortunately, for a while, they'll probably have to go far in the other direction to change people's opinions. Their wedding wardrobes were just the last straw -- and RED MEAT for the press...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 05-07-2011, 05:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Does it strike anyone else as strange that we never seem to lay blame on the Queen herself for this?

We've mentioned the parents so often and yet we don't mention the grandparents. Sarah I can't comment but Andrew being a bit of a fool falls squarely on his parents but that never seems to come up. It's always "Andrew, his girls and his ex wife what a bunch of useless scroungers" Well where the hell did he pick up his bad habits?

If the rumors are true of him being the favored son than should we not be looking at the Queen as much as Andrew himself? He wasn't raised with the expectations of the heir but how did he fall so far from Anne and even Edward? The Queen, for the most part, is seen as untouchable but this can't fall all on Andrew or even Phillip can it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 05-07-2011, 07:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 202
I don't think that any blame can fairly be directed at Prince Phillip. For years, his dislike of Sarah has been well-known and it's also been reported that he always believed that if Andrew let Sarah live with him, that it would come back to bite him. It was different when the girls were small, but by the time he moved into Royal Lodge it was a huge PR mistake allowing Sarah to live there.

IMO that's when the tide turned against Andrew...when the press or people for that matter, are looking for the negative, they will usually find it. And it's just been one scandal after another.

Unfortunately for the princesses, they had two strikes against them to begin with and it's hard to come from behind.

As for laying blame at HM's feet...well excluding Charles (who has his own money) HM controls the purse strings for the family. So either she approves of the scandals and misbehavior, or she has no backbone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 05-07-2011, 07:31 PM
jdcharlie's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: :), United States
Posts: 257
I wouldn't be surprised if this announcement has nothing to do with the princesses themselves and everything to do with timing and learning from the past. Beatrice is graduating from Uni this year (next month?) so it's time to make a decision.

Also, perhaps the royal family is simply learning from the past. In time, the princesses will be in a similar position to QEII's cousins and it has been left primarily to her to support her extended family although they are no longer major royals. Members here know the stories better than I, but hasn't there been a lot of recent issues surrounding the cheap rent, support, etc. for the extended family? Maybe this is simply nipping a future problem in the bud when the princesses still have their entire lives ahead of them and the time to make of them whatever they want.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 05-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlottestreasures View Post
Years ago, shortly after their births, there was a discussion of actually
taking away their HRH status as Anne and Edward had chosen not to
have this status for their children and there was a desire for the downsizing of the "royal family".

In hind sight it would have been probably better for the girls so they could
get on with a "normal" upbringing and future life.

Of course the downside, is that when William becomes King the family
would be small and all the royal engagements now that are covered by
the Queen's cousins, etc would have to be reduced.

The 1917 LPs are what determined that they were born HRH Princesses.

Anne would have to have had a title for herself, her husband or for the children and she decided no, unlike Margaret who insisted on a title for her husband so her children would have a title.

Edward's decision about his children and their titles was made more than a decade after Beatrice was born.

There was no discussion at the time of their births - which were publicly celebrated in the press with joy at the birth of two new princesses.

The sniping about their titles started after the War of the Wales' and the death of Diana - when the girls were already at school.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 05-07-2011, 08:38 PM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
I agree with you jdcharlie, that the eagerness for the Sisters to forge their own carers, is related to the public resentment over The Duchy of Lancaster. There simply can't be too many people without their own income. I was against the idea of downsizing The Royal Family, purely because I like the romance of a larger Royal Family (Princess Alexandra is one of my favorite members) but now I realise it's too much of a PR nightmare in this day and age. Beatrice and Eugenie got caught in the transition between a larger Monarchy and a smaller one. They were born before size was much of a concern, and it became an issue before they could really establish temsleves in Royal roles. It doesn't help that they have the Parents they do, but the fact is that they are not the Daughters of The Sovereign, and it's very likely that they never will be. This makes them very easy to criticise if they're not making their own money, so carving out their own careers is a good choice.

Another reason this would be a good idea, is Catherine. Can you imagine the headlines if they were launched at the same time as her? "Another opportunity snatched from the future Queen" This isn't even mentioning the unfavourable comparrisons of their looks to hers. It wouldn't be fair, but it would be inevitable. It simply wouldn't be in the best intersts of The York Princesses, to walk the same track as Kate. Even if they were given stylists and PR advisors, it's her who people want to see.

This all said, I hope they keep their HRHs and Coats of Arms. Why should anyone object if they're supporting themsleves?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 05-07-2011, 10:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
In twenty years from now the only royals will be Charles and Camilla, William and Kate and Harry and his spouse with their children still some years away from doing royal duties.

This will be a good thing - particularly if Harry's children are raised to know that they will have to be independent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 05-07-2011, 11:33 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by kakieanne View Post
I don't think that any blame can fairly be directed at Prince Phillip. For years, his dislike of Sarah has been well-known and it's also been reported that he always believed that if Andrew let Sarah live with him, that it would come back to bite him. It was different when the girls were small, but by the time he moved into Royal Lodge it was a huge PR mistake allowing Sarah to live there.

IMO that's when the tide turned against Andrew...when the press or people for that matter, are looking for the negative, they will usually find it. And it's just been one scandal after another.

Unfortunately for the princesses, they had two strikes against them to begin with and it's hard to come from behind.

As for laying blame at HM's feet...well excluding Charles (who has his own money) HM controls the purse strings for the family. So either she approves of the scandals and misbehavior, or she has no backbone.
I think it's been established that the Queen is pretty lenient with her children and grandchildren; but I doubt she isn't bothered at all by the "scandals and misbehaviour." The problem is that Beatrice and Eugenie haven't really misbehaved very badly. Besides being Andrew and Sarah's daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie's main sins seem to be their looks and dress sense. They can't change the first two, and as for their fashion sense, look at how Princess Anne has been dressing for years! It isn't the "royal way" to call in an army of PR people or fashion advisors to change nasty newspaper headlines.

Remember also that the royal family has been slow in the past to respond to criticism (in the aftermath of Diana's death, for example). Andrew takes a lot of criticism for his job, but he seems to have a thick skin and just lets it roll off him. So this attitude has been passed down to Beatrice and Eugenie - that a certain amount of criticism comes with the territory, and that the best way of dealing with it is to ignore it.

I also think the Queen does have a soft spot for Andrew and perhaps understands how hard it is for him to walk the line between the royal family and his own nuclear family. It's true that letting Sarah live at Royal Lodge has created problems for him, and the main dilemma is going to become more and more apparent each year. Andrew really believes in family, but the question is, which family does he support? To let Sarah live with him is to alienate himself from the members of his extended family who don't like her; but to cast Sarah out is to tear apart his own nuclear family. In an interview to mark the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh's 60th anniversary, Andrew said that he regretted not living up to their long-lasting marriage. Part of his closeness to Sarah is probably an attempt to hold on to a shred of that ideal - but ironically, he's probably not pleasing his father by doing so.

But back to Beatrice and Eugenie; I still say they will not be able to match Kate and shouldn't even try. Susanna Wynne, I don't think even if Beatrice and Eugenie stayed away from nightclubs and/or dressed better that the tide of public opinion would turn towards them. They are always going to be Andrew and Sarah's daughters, and they are never going to look as naturally put-together as Kate - and they will never be as close to the throne as she will be. For all those reasons, I think they should just go and make themselves as useful as possible outside the royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 05-07-2011, 11:46 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlottestreasures
Years ago, shortly after their births, there was a discussion of actually
taking away their HRH status as Anne and Edward had chosen not to
have this status for their children and there was a desire for the downsizing of the "royal family"..
Well Edwards children weren't born until many,many years after Eug and Bea so not sure how his childrens titles could have influenced any discussion that occurred ''shortly after their births'' of removing HRH status.....and for the record Edwards children are HRH's they just don't use it....only Anne's are not HRH's .....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 05-08-2011, 01:56 AM
RubyPrincess168's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sun Prairie, United States
Posts: 1,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
But back to Beatrice and Eugenie; I still say they will not be able to match Kate and shouldn't even try. Susanna Wynne, I don't think even if Beatrice and Eugenie stayed away from nightclubs and/or dressed better that the tide of public opinion would turn towards them. They are always going to be Andrew and Sarah's daughters, and they are never going to look as naturally put-together as Kate - and they will never be as close to the throne as she will be. For all those reasons, I think they should just go and make themselves as useful as possible outside the royal family.
Here here!

I think B&E should be looking to support themselves in the future. William is now married, Harry will marry, and when they both have children B&E will fall farther away from the throne in the line of succession. I think Edward and Anne realized this and it influenced their decision as to whether or not give their children titles. And of course there is also the ever-present anti-monarchist arguement of taxpayers having to support the royal family. Downsizing is inevitable every so many generations. Surely they realized this was a possibility. And one would hope that they have a dream of what they'd like to do if they were born "normal people".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 05-08-2011, 02:16 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by RubyPrincess168 View Post
Here here!

I think B&E should be looking to support themselves in the future. William is now married, Harry will marry, and when they both have children B&E will fall farther away from the throne in the line of succession. I think Edward and Anne realized this and it influenced their decision as to whether or not give their children titles. And of course there is also the ever-present anti-monarchist arguement of taxpayers having to support the royal family. Downsizing is inevitable every so many generations. Surely they realized this was a possibility. And one would hope that they have a dream of what they'd like to do if they were born "normal people".

I am sure that they had such a dream but...

were they told 3 - 4 years ago that they wouldn't be doing royal duties - i.e. before they decided what to study at uni or are they only being told now and thus has Beatrice wasted three years on a degree that isn't really on what she would like to do if a normal person but rather on what she thought might be useful as a working royal? With Eugenie it would only be two wasted years of course.

I am sure that they are doing degrees in which they have some interest but - are they for their 'dream' careers if normal or for a 'royal' career that now appears closed to them?

That would have been so unfair if three to four years ago the Queen etc said to the girls - 'yes you will be working members of the family so choose subjects to help you in that' but now they say 'sorry girls but you are no longer wanted or needed in the family business so you have to do your own thing'.


There has been a rumour for some time that Beatrice would like to get involved in fashion - so should she have done a course to help her there rather than a degree in history and history of ideas? (Yes I know Beatrice and fashion are hardly two words that should ever be used in the same sentence in a positive way as her ideas on fashion range from disaster downwards but...)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 05-08-2011, 07:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Please could I try to help with some background information and a little of my own interpretation?

In my very humble opinion, I think that the situation of Beatrice and Eugenie owes itself to a number of interwoven facts that have suddenly all come to a head at the same time: Before trying to explore these in some more detail however, please could I start by dealing with the statement that I often see repeated in various places that Andrew is the Queen's favourite son? What I actually think is this: the Queen loves her children equally I am sure, but she seems to have a 'closeness' to Andrew and indeed Edward [The Queen reported spends a lot of time with Edward and Sophie at their home] which I think has arisen because of the circumstances surrounding their births: if we cast our minds back, Charles and Anne were born in 1948 and 1950 before the Queen suddenly found hereslf inheriting a position that she had assumed would not happen for some years, because of the relatively sudden and unexpected death of her father. Suddenly, in 1952 the Queen found herself both as the mother of two very small children and also as head of a Realm and a Commonwealth. Her succession responsibilities I am sure impacted on her family life as she struggled to find a balance; remember that back in the 1950's, monarchy was a very much formal affair that it seems today; also of course, even the 'business of royalty' took longer; air transport was slower, with longer plane journeys and no helicopters - in other words, being the 'Queen' took up a lot of the Queen's time, and in my very humble opinion took up a lot of her 'family' time, with the result that she saw less of her two elder children than she would probably have wanted.

By the time that Andrew and then Edward were born, I think that the Queen had both 'settled into her royal role' a lot better and of course was the beneficiary of the huge social changes of the 1960's that had begun to usher in a more informal style. The Queen reportedly had a lot more time to spend with Andrew and Edward [one of her biographers reported how he once found Andrew and Edward playing away on the floor whilst the Queen worked on her state business two feet away at her desk]. Thus, in my very humble opinion, the Queen developed a more 'informal closeness' to her two youngest, but she did not love them any more, or her two elder children any the less.

Now today's position; first, contemporary society allows a lot of outspoken criticism of the monarchy and the Royal Family which even 30 years ago did not exist so strongly. Today we are also facing a time of austerity - lots of families are in financial difficulties and the UK jobs situation at time seems pretty grim: the result of this is that 'too much flaunting of one's wealth' and 'too much public enjoyement' seems to be frowned on. Also of course, the events of 29 April 2011 have now 'secured' the outlook for the 'next generation' - in other words, it seems a convenient time for the Royals to 'take stock' of the current situation:

First, the Prince of Wales for some years has been talking about 'slimming down the monarchy' but even this has not been his sole preserve - look at the changes that the Queen herself has instigated - her decision to pay income tax, her decision to make Edward a Royal Earl rather than a Royal Duke, her decision to refund to the Treasury many of the annual Civil List payments made to her family [the Kents, Gloucesters] the decision to make Prince Michael of Kent pay an economic rent for his KP appartment etc etc.

The tone for a contraction of monarchy thus having been set, we now find ourselves at an ideal 'position' to move the implementation of these changes 'up a gear'. Prince William is now, to all intents and purposes, working as an 'ordinary' member of the armed forces rather than as a full time 'royal'; there is some public 'disquiet' at the cost of monarchy, and particularly the security costs of the DoY's daughters, particularly when Zara, herself a grandchild of the Queen, is without security protection. Princess Beatrice and Eugenie - Regardless of whether it is accurate or fair or kind - are seen to be costing the country £250,000 a year in security protection alone - they are also seen as 'unpopular', again regardless of whether it is accurate or fair or kind, as a result one suspects of the general dismay surrounding the DofY's Special Trade Representative role AND the continuing unpopularity of Sarah, Duchess of York, [whether fair or not is by-the-by: the problem is that 'perception is reality'] right down to the fact that most of the press coverage of Beatrice and Eugenie is concentrated on their alleged 'holiday, clubbing and partying lifestyle'.

With all of the foregoing, now seems to be good time for the Royal Family's image makers [basically BP courtiers, who one presumes must be acting on the advice of the Queen, because I am quite sure that NOTHING happens without HM's say-so] to announce the axing of the Princesses' security protection and the intention for B and E to have their own careers rather than a royal role.

For the future, I think that if Beatrice and Eugenie start careers, they should prefereably consider roles that do not in any way 'depend' on their 'royalty'. Don't forget how the Countess of Wessex tried to keep on her fomer PR job, but in fact was unable to do so and indeed became badly unstuck [as was revealed by the 'Fake Sheik' ] because her 'professional life' was 'boosted' by her newly-found royal status: there would not have been such a problem if (say) Sophie had been a teacher or a secretary. Don't forget that the most 'successful' working royals have been those who worked at roles which at least theoretically owed NOTHING to their royal status: the Duke of Kent and Prince Michael both had satisfactory service careers, the Duke of Gloucester [before he succeeded to his father's title] had been an architect; come to that, the DofY, Prince William and Prince Harry have all been applauded for their 'service' careers, rather than just their 'royal' careers. An honourable mention should also no doubt go to the present Duchess of Kent, who in recent times had been working as music teacher, based on her 'musical talent' rather than her 'royal position'.

If Beatrice and Eugenie do move to 'un-royal' careers or perhaps take up some form of profession, the next step might be to help their exit from 'front line' royal prominence by following royal precedent and give consideration to the removal of their royal titles and precedence, as was the case in 1919 when Princess Patricia renounced her princely title on her marriage to the Hon Alexander Ramsay in order to step back from a 'public' royal life. Unfair perhaps, but in this day and age, in my very humble opionion, the Monarchy is going to have to develop in order to preserve itself.

As a footnote, I think that much would be done to improve the Yorks' public image [however unfair it may sound] if Beatrice and Eugenie cut down on their foreign holidays and clubbing and if Sarah Duchess of York stepped permanantly OUT of the limelight. At the moment, the PERCEPTION is that most of the York family are 'running with the international white-trash jet set' [as it is known] and I don't think that this is helping with their image. Yes, it sounds unfair, and I accept that many people might think that this would have a negative impact on Sarah's charitable work, but the bottom line is that AT THE MOMENT and however UNFAIR it seems, in my humble opinion, the Yorks' popularity would best be servied by a period of withdrawal from public life. Please may I stress that I don't want this to be seen as 'Sarah bashing'; it is just that every time the Yorks put their heads 'above the parapet', HUGE negative publicity results however much it may not be the fault of the individuals, particularly Beatrice and Eugenie.

Just my thoughts,

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 05-08-2011, 08:15 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
In twenty years from now the only royals will be Charles and Camilla, William and Kate and Harry and his spouse with their children still some years away from doing royal duties.

This will be a good thing - particularly if Harry's children are raised to know that they will have to be independent.
I agree and maybe it goes even further that Harry wont do any duties apart from a few personal patronages. I am pretty sure it will be down to monarch couple and heir couple, not now but speaking decades. The scenery will change dramatically after QEII's death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 05-08-2011, 09:46 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
I agree and maybe it goes even further that Harry wont do any duties apart from a few personal patronages. I am pretty sure it will be down to monarch couple and heir couple, not now but speaking decades. The scenery will change dramatically after QEII's death.
Part of that will come from the shrinking of the commonwealth. Australia's got a strong republican movement and it seems that Canada is leaning to no crown after Elizabeth passes. With less countries to visit comes less opportunities for the rest of the royals, the family will be like all the others. Monarch and their family nothing else.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 05-08-2011, 10:38 AM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
It really depends on what "independent" careers the girls decide to pursue. If it is modelling, they could be open to criticism. Other careers, probably less so.
I fully agree with you. If Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugine opts for a career in a serious field, slashing critisicim may subside. A career in a medical field might be viewed as a common example of a serious indepedent career. I doubt that either of Princesses will ever enter this field. The other viable option may include teaching (e.g., Infanta Elena of Spain is a teacher).
__________________
"To watch the sun sink behind a flower clad hill.
To wander on in a huge forest without thought of return. To stand upon the shore and gaze after a boat that disappears behind distant islands. To contemplate the flight of wild geese seen and lost among the clouds.
And, subtle shadows of bamboo on bamboo." Zeami Motokiyo
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 05-08-2011, 10:40 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliver_bic View Post
Part of that will come from the shrinking of the commonwealth. Australia's got a strong republican movement and it seems that Canada is leaning to no crown after Elizabeth passes. With less countries to visit comes less opportunities for the rest of the royals, the family will be like all the others. Monarch and their family nothing else.
Yes that exactly what I meant. I think the York girls are mainly victims of their parents' sense of status and power, this being just another example.

And back to topic, the duties and roles for Beatrice and Eugenie seem to be very clear now as QEII, the smart & sensible woman she is, obviously made it clear that she expects the princesses to pursue their own careers after university, rather than go on the Civil List as working members of the Royal Family: there wont be much apart from the odd personal patronage or family event and if they feel the need to be protected on such a rare occasion, so be it.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 05-08-2011, 10:42 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,170
The York girls will never be on the Civil List.

I realize everyone has their own opinions and agendas regarding the York girls but can we at least get the basic facts straight.

I realize that the general public doesn't know or care for the basic facts (ie. the Civil List, Beatrice and Eugenie being full time college students) but I think the people who post here are (or should be) aware of the basics.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 05-08-2011, 10:59 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
The York girls will never be on the Civil List.

I realize everyone has their own opinions and agendas regarding the York girls but can we at least get the basic facts straight.

I realize that the general public doesn't know or care for the basic facts (ie. the Civil List, Beatrice and Eugenie being full time college students) but I think the people who post here are (or should be) aware of the basics.
Well I am aware of the basics and what the civil list is; let me clarify my wording: Bea & Eugenie will never make the list themselves but could have ended up among the people who are paid by the monarch who receives money from the civil list, if that makes sense. And I believe that this is what Andrew was aiming for. Its about receiving money from whatever institution for "work".
After the Family of York desasters of recent weeks, months and years the BRF seems to have an interest to do a clean cut between the core BRF and "satellite" members like Bea & Eugenie who will need to make their own living, what goes hand in hand with public expectation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 05-08-2011, 11:00 AM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
From The Telegraph: an interesting article. Toward the end, the removal of B. and E.'s security detail is mentioned.


Royal family braced for cut in funding - Telegraph
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
career, education, princess beatrice, princess eugenie, royal duties, social life, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duties, Roles and Royal Training of the Princes JOY! Prince Harry and Prince William 214 02-20-2013 07:07 PM
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie: Old News and Photos Warren The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 87 10-18-2011 04:11 PM
Beatrice and Eugenie : Baby/child Pics: Part 1 Martine The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 133 03-03-2006 11:25 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]