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

[Skydragon]

it must have escaped me these tremendous support the media has for Charles and Camilla. and in reference to Times poll, what makes it 'illegitimate' other than the fact supposedly Camilla and Charles are coming short? I don't know about Time O'Donovan, I would like a link on that reference. What I've read on various media is YouGov poll conducted by the Times.

We were I believe discussing the work load report that you quoted. - Royal Insight > April 2006 > Mailbox > Page 2 - as you will see, the figures do not include, audiences, Investitures or overseas engagements. The Times online page under the search Royal Engagements in 2007 will not load at the moment, but as you can see, the official site lists his amateur report. - Mr Tim O'Donovan, a member of the public, logs the engagements undertaken by each member of the Royal Family during the calendar year; these are obtained from the Court Circular pages in certain national newspapers. The figures are then totalled and the results are published on the letters page of The Times at the beginning of each year, providing a set of unofficial statistics.

I would also point out that Yougov conducts the polls for various newsgroups, not the other way around.

Here is a recent poll done by Discovery Channel:

Two polls (if you check although you have posted three, two quote the same source), and a total of how many out of the entire population of the British Isles?

Is that your own conducted polling or do you refer to some evidence within public opinions based on sources you can post? Its one thing to state ones personal opinion, its another to provide absolute answers in a royal forum where its about suppositions and gossip media.

Read the Andrew thread and of course all the comments on here from people from the UK. There are many articles within the media that condemn Andrews lack of effort, very many of them posted in the Andrew threads. If you are still having trouble reading them, let me know by PM and I'll send you all the links. I would also add that among my friends and my childrens friends, I have been unable to find anyone who thinks Andrew is doing a good job and is worthy of an HRH.

so giving direct support and doing your royal duty is considered 'fanfare'? Was Prince Philip visiting the troops last year in Afghanistan 'a fanfare'? If all the senior royals conducted their royal engagements in private or informally, there would be little purpose for the Monarchy since most people and government would wonder what they do all year.

Whilst fanfare has it's place, many soldiers returning injured or the bereaved wives, mothers, daughters do not want that sort of thing. Being paraded for the camera's, many are appreciative of the personal touch of a private visit to their bedside or home. Contrary to the belief of some, the majority of the armed forces in Iraq or Afghanistan do not want or appreciate a visit from a royal or politician. With their visit comes extra danger to the men and in the majority of cases, the 'men' are taken to the plane to meet the royal, so that the royal doesn't have to walk too far to greet the men. They are too busy trying to stay alive to want to 'f*nny about' over a royal. They are also ordered to smile and wave, although many do in the hope that their relatives might see them.

lastly, if Camilla does as much for the troops as you claim, why hasn't any of the military divisions publish as they usually do when any officials public figures visits them.

Because Camilla has the sense, as an ex army wife to know that the men and the wives don't want to share their worries, injuries and grief with a camera lens or a newspaper. The visits are purely on a private basis, for the good of the men and women she meets, not to bulk up her image.

that we can agree on and in my opinion he's doing a good job as a senior royal and his daughters have few more years to establish their place within the royal family.

No we cannot agree that Andrew does a good job, nor do his daughters, whatever their age.

The best bet for Andrew and his daughters, IMO, is to lose the HRH and fade into obscurity in America.

 

[zembla]

The best bet for Andrew and his daughters, IMO, is to lose the HRH and fade into obscurity in America.

...tell us how you really feel.

 

[BeatrixFan]

But she's right. She's always right. And I mean that.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Princess Eugenie can't be fairly included in this "problem". Princess Beatrice alone seems to suffer from the confused distinction between royalty and celebrity. Princess Eugenie, to my awareness, has not, of yet, shown any dangerous leanings.

Perhaps despite my "better" judgement (whatever that means) I like these princesses. I hope they find how to be themselves and make positive contributions to the world.

 

[Charlotte1]

We were I believe discussing the work load report that you quoted. - Royal Insight > April 2006 > Mailbox > Page 2 - as you will see, the figures do not include, audiences, Investitures or overseas engagements. The Times online page under the search Royal Engagements in 2007 will not load at the moment, but as you can see, the official site lists his amateur report. - Mr Tim O'Donovan, a member of the public, logs the engagements undertaken by each member of the Royal Family during the calendar year; these are obtained from the Court Circular pages in certain national newspapers. The figures are then totalled and the results are published on the letters page of The Times at the beginning of each year, providing a set of unofficial statistics.

The statement that Tim O'Donovan's figures do not include audiences, investitures of overseas engagements is not correct. He is quite thorough in his gathering of data. He just doesn't just give a number of engagements but actually breaks it up into, dinners, meetings, overseas engagements, investitures, audiences, openings. This year he stated that the Queen had fewer overseas engagements but more within Britain. That 75% of Andrew's overseas engagements were due to his role with Trade and investment ( the other 25% were things like attending Malaysia's 50th anniversary of Independence, the Thai king's birthday, visiting regiments in Canada)

He also uses just The Times to gather his information, the Court Circular which The Times has printed for 200 years. The information in the Court Circular comes directly from The Palace, so we can assume it's accurate.
His statistics are unofficial as he's a private person who just does it for a hobby, he's not employed by any statistic gathering organisation or the Palace. Anyone can verify his data if they have the time to sit down with a year's worth of The Times newspapers and are prepared to trawl through The Court Circular.

Clarence House does release official figures that include not only the public engagements that are listed in The Court Circular but also private engagements. The information released includes things such as how many letters Charles ( and now Camilla) received, how many they personally replied to. Clarence Houses releasing this kind of information is to try and counteract the negative things written about Charles ( and now Camilla) and their workload. Buckingham Palace do not release the same kind of information for the Queen, DoE, Anne, Andrew etc. But that doesn't mean that they too don't equally spend a comparable amount of time 'working behind the scenes'

I agree that Andrew doesn't have a good public image in the UK, but then again neither did Anne in the 1980's it took years, ( the 1990's) when she would year after year appear near the top of Mr O'Donovan's figures. ( Not the top that was always Prince Philip, it's only recently due to his age that his workload had reduced) Andrew has just begun, it will take a number of years before he will be given any credit for the work he does. The whole 'playing golf while on Trade business' is an outdated criticism, it goes back years, there have been no such stories ( as he hasn't done it, if he had it would be on the front pages of the tabloids so easy to verify!) for the past few years. It's just an easy thing to hang onto to criticise Andrew just like Camilla is criticised for being workshy over some 'attributed comment from a 'friend' or Charles and criticism for his talking to plants and being a 'looney'. Tabloid journalism isn't of the high intellectual variety and will hang onto the stereotypes they develop.

Andrew didn't do a lot of royal engagements in the past as from the age of 19 he was a fulltime naval officer, so it's somewhat unfair to criticise him for being workshy even from before he met Sarah ( who as a royal carried out quite an impressive amount of public engagements, again can be verified. Diana actually never did, it was just that hers got the most publicity so it seemed as though she did a lot. Probably something that really irked Anne who was doing double the engagements of Diana and getting a tenth of the publicity)

It's easy to criticise Beatrice but as Elspeth pointed out, she's the grand-daughter of a monarch, and as such she will carry out some duties but will also have a worklife away from royal duties. A more equal comparison would be with the Belgian royals, the children of Princess Astrid, also grandchildren of a monarch and around the same age as Beatrice, they have carried out no royal duties, none at all and Princess Astrid receives money from the Belgian tax payer.

Charles did not start fulltime royal duties until he was 27 and had left the navy. Anne did not start until after she had children ( early 30's) she was in serious training as an equestrian, once she retired she got pregnant with her son and then Zara. Edward as we know tried to set up his own business, it failed and in his late 30's he became a fulltime royal. Andrew retired from the navy at 42 to become a fulltime royal. The expectation that Beatrice will become a fulltime royal at 19 isn't realistic especially as there are a number of fulltime royals at the moment.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

A
why would you say she's a 'kept woman' other than in reference to her past 'mistress' title before marrying Charles in 2005?
.

I only reacted to your saying that Camilla has "yet to earn her keep", that says IMHO that she is a kept woman. So I had the impression that this was your opinion and was curious why you would say this when Camilla is married to the man who pays for her keep...

 

[wymanda]

If Beatrice is not going onto further education then, perhaps, she could "shadow" her Aunt Anne or Princess Alexandra and learn what a true working Princess should be doing.
I shudder when I see pictures of her partying with the likes of Peaches Geldof!
Mind you, how much work does Princess Madelaine do?????

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The best bet for Andrew and his daughters, IMO, is to lose the HRH and fade into obscurity in America.

I guess once the princesses marry, they will follow the example of Princess Patricia of Connaught (a grand-daughter of queen Victoria) who on her marriage relinquished formally her title and style of princess and HRH to become simply Lady Patricia Ramsay. And then there was HRH princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark who asked the then king Georg VI. on her marriage to relinquish her Royal title and was created Lady Katherine Brandram with the precedence of a duke's daughter.

I believe the difference to Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy was that she had already proven that she has been an asset to the Royal family and the British public when she got married, so she kept her HRH in order to go on working for "the firm".

 

[Skydragon]

The statement that Tim O'Donovan's figures do not include audiences, investitures of overseas engagements is not correct. --SNIPPED__

The quote was from the government site, not a personal quote. It is also worth mentioning I feel that this was last years list

--SNIPPED-- That 75% of Andrew's overseas engagements were due to his role with Trade and investment ( the other 25% were things like attending Malaysia's 50th anniversary of Independence, the Thai king's birthday, visiting regiments in Canada)

Which just goes to show that he does not need the HRH and the extra money he gets. Can you imagine the CEO of a top company getting away with so few business meetings or events?

I agree that Andrew doesn't have a good public image in the UK, but then again neither did Anne in the 1980's it took years, ( the 1990's) when she would year after year appear near the top of Mr O'Donovan's figures. ( Not the top that was always Prince Philip, it's only recently due to his age that his workload had reduced) Andrew has just begun, it will take a number of years before he will be given any credit for the work he does.--SNIPPED--
Andrew didn't do a lot of royal engagements in the past as from the age of 19 he was a fulltime naval officer, so it's somewhat unfair to criticise him for being workshy even from before he met Sarah ( who as a royal carried out quite an impressive amount of public engagements, again can be verified. Diana actually never did, it was just that hers got the most publicity so it seemed as though she did a lot. ---SNIPPED

I havn't said a great deal about his navy days, now he is constantly seen as workshy. He only does what he can't get out of IMO. He simply can't sit back and say 'I was in the navy, I fought in the Falklands', give me a medal'. Many of the men who fought at that time, came back, were binned out by the MOD (not Andrew though), had to find accomodation and jobs. Just because he was in the navy umpteen years ago, doesn't entitle him to anything. He has got a bad reputation in the UK, he rarely makes the papers here, so as he doesn't seem to 'rock the boat' of the UK taxpayers, is it right that we should continue to pay him a salary. What HM does with the money she is given, is up to her but it is no good asking for more for the upkeep of the royal homes, when she could save a bit by insisting that Sarah and Andrew pay for the security, if they think it is needed, for their daughters. Eugenie as everyone says is still at school, Beatrice is doing nothing except party and holiday, probably paid for as a claimable expense. I genuinly can't see a role for her once William and Harry marry, she is more popular in the states than she is here. IMO.

Someone was asking for poll results about Andrew and his daughters, there are none, (as a member of YouGov, Mori, I did a search) simply because they are not considered important to the monarchy.

 

[Charlotte1]

The quote was from the government site, not a personal quote. It is also worth mentioning I feel that this was last years listWhich just goes to show that he does not need the HRH and the extra money he gets. Can you imagine the CEO of a top company getting away with so few business meetings or events?

The government site royal.co.uk, the Insight mailbag often has errors in it. Tim O'Donovan for a long time, not just this year has broken down exactly what type of public engagements the royals have done.

Andrew has done 556 public engagements, ( which is more than Charles, The Queen, the DoE, Edward etc, only Anne has done more) for each business trip he does he has briefings this was not counted in his public engagements since they're not listed in the Court Circular. Unless one has actually seen his diary then to condemn him for doing little is unfair.

He's currently on a Trade and Investment trip to Egypt, from where he travels to Abu Dhabi and finally to the US, all within the next month. The British Trade and Investment Board would not be using him the way they are if they didn't think what he was doing was worthwhile. The contrast is that the post he holds was previously held by the Duke of Kent, he was very much a figurehead and didn't attend the trade functions that Andrew does. If Andrew wasn't much use then he too would have been shunted off as a figurehead, good on the notepaper but not involved in meetings, addressing foreign audiences, or attending trade functions overseas.

I don't think that either Andrew or his daughters will ever have a high profile, eventually Beatrice and Eugenie will have the same kind of role that Princess Alexandra has, a few public engagements a month and be paid from the Civil list allowance that the monarch receives. Currently Alexandra, and the Duke of Kent carry out a few public engagements ( the Duke more than Alexandra) most people would have no idea but they're still doing it. Same with the Duke and Duchess of Gloucestor ( more than the Kents) and all of them are paid from QEII's Civil List allowance like Andrew, Edward and Sophie.

 

[Charlotte1]

I guess once the princesses marry, they will follow the example of Princess Patricia of Connaught (a grand-daughter of queen Victoria) who on her marriage relinquished formally her title and style of princess and HRH to become simply Lady Patricia Ramsay. And then there was HRH princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark who asked the then king Georg VI. on her marriage to relinquish her Royal title and was created Lady Katherine Brandram with the precedence of a duke's daughter.

I believe the difference to Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy was that she had already proven that she has been an asset to the Royal family and the British public when she got married, so she kept her HRH in order to go on working for "the firm".

Princess Patricia relinquished her title and HRH because she didn't want to have a title higher than her husband's, she was also shy and didn't like doing public engagements.
Princess Katherine of Greece was not allowed to use her princess title in the UK when she married a British citizen and became one herself. She was not a British princess and had no right to be called Princess Katherine so George VI granted her permission to be known as Lady Katherine. She didn't relinguish anything, she wasn't allowed to use it once she became a British citizen. (This is why outside of the UK she's referred to as Princess Katherine, Lady Branham and she was buried in Greece as Princess Katherine)

Alexandra kept her HRH and princess title ( and 24hr police protection that all HRH's get) because there was no reason not to. She didn't want to relinquish it and noone asked her to.

 

[Skydragon]

The government site royal.co.uk, the Insight mailbag often has errors in it.

Royal engagements in 2006 - Comment - Times Online
Royal engagements in 2007 -Times Online

All engagements differ as to time and content and there is also the time taken in preparation.

Unless one has actually seen his diary then to condemn him for doing little is unfair.

It works both ways, unless one has seen his diary, it is unfair to presume he does anything extra. The same applies to Charles, Camilla and Anne of course.

He's currently on a Trade and Investment trip to Egypt, from where he travels to Abu Dhabi and finally to the US, all within the next month.

And yet by taking his daughter with him, he has shown that he is willing to abuse his position. It strikes me that Andrew sees these visits as a 'get the meeting out of the way, then I can really enjoy my holiday' event.

I don't think that either Andrew or his daughters will ever have a high profile, eventually Beatrice and Eugenie will have the same kind of role that Princess Alexandra has, a few public engagements a month and be paid from the Civil list allowance that the monarch receives

The civil list was altered a few years ago. The only people who receive money from the revised list are HM & Philip. Out of the money she receives, she gives allowances to her family. To stretch it still further would take a miracle I would think and we don't know if Charles will be willing to part with the money on less productive family members. Someone posted a story, that Charles would remove the HRH from his nieces in an effort to slim down the royal family. I can't see Beatrice or Eugenie being thought so fondly of as Alexandra or Katherine Kent. All IMO of course.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Princess Katherine of Greece was not allowed to use her princess title in the UK when she married a British citizen and became one herself. She was not a British princess and had no right to be called Princess Katherine so George VI granted her permission to be known as Lady Katherine. She didn't relinguish anything, she wasn't allowed to use it once she became a British citizen.

The thing is that when princess Katherine married, her family still was the reigning family of Greece plus she had the courtesy title of a princess of Denmark. If prince Philip of Greece and Denmark had not wanted to marry the heiress of the British throne, he would not have needed to get rid of his Royal title.

So I doubt that princess Katherine's title was not acknowledged in Britain - her cousin Marina's surely was! Especially as the then king and his sucessors were children or grand-children of princess Alexandra of Denmark whose brother had founded the dynasty of "of Greece and Denmark".

 

[PadThaiPrincess]

Why extensive security for Airmiles Andy since his face doesn't appear in print with any regularity?

Are they all afforded the same level of protection? Or does security tighten up for the Senior Royals?

 

[HRH Kimetha]

You seem to think that being born into the Royal Family comes with no responsibilities and thats simply not the case these days. British people expect to see the Royal Family working because although we're told that only the Queen gets money from the civil list, there's no doubt at all that everything Beatrice and Eugenie have - we've paid for. Though they recieve no money directly, their father has because he carries out Royal duties and so essentially, we're paying for them. The Duchess of York may very well pay for them to party etc but as Princesses of the UK, we actually expect them to follow their Aunty Anne's lead and so something worthwhile to legitimise the luxury they live in. They don't appear to be doing anything at all worthwhile with their lives and though they didn't choose to be born into the Royal Family, the homeless didn't choose to be homeless but they deal with their station in life.

Very well spoken as they do have what they have through the taxpayers whether directly or indirectly through 'daddy'. However, how would the taxpayers feel if they didn't do anything like charitable causes for their fellow UKers, but for conservation, wildlife and the like. Those would be my own interests as the rest of the family pretty well takes up the other causes adequately in my eyes. I like wildlife and it's management and ecology. Those would be my 'charities' that I would pursue. Looking for some good comments on the type of work that a royal has to carry out.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

.... The whole 'playing golf while on Trade business' is an outdated criticism, it goes back years, there have been no such stories ( as he hasn't done it, if he had it would be on the front pages of the tabloids so easy to verify!) for the past few years.

I personally do not see anything wrong with enjoying oneself during off-time, while on a royal engagement. Whether going to dinner, to the theatre or out golfing, there is downtime that is the privledge of the individual after the 'work is done'.

 

[Charlotte1]

The thing is that when princess Katherine married, her family still was the reigning family of Greece plus she had the courtesy title of a princess of Denmark. If prince Philip of Greece and Denmark had not wanted to marry the heiress of the British throne, he would not have needed to get rid of his Royal title.

So I doubt that princess Katherine's title was not acknowledged in Britain - her cousin Marina's surely was! Especially as the then king and his sucessors were children or grand-children of princess Alexandra of Denmark whose brother had founded the dynasty of "of Greece and Denmark".

No Philip got rid of his title as he became a British citizen, as a British citizen he couldn't be a Prince of Greek and Denmark. Philip wanted a career in the Royal Navy and had applied to be a British citizen in 1942 or 43 but as there was a war on nothing was done. After the war he deferred again until the monarchy was restored in Greek in as he didn't want to renounce his claim while the outcome of the referendum to the return on the monarchy was run. Once the Greeks returned in 1946 then his application for British citizenship went through. Regardless of whether he married The Princess Elizabeth, becoming a British citizen he would not have been Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark but rather Philip Mountbatten.
Marina once she married was not Princess Marina, she was The Duchess of Kent and that's how she was known until her son married. With another Duchess of Kent on the scene, Marina wanted to be known by her birth title so she was known as Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, but it was a courtesy that QEII allowed her to use, just like she later allowed her other aunt the Duchess of Gloucestor who became Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucestor. Alice had not been a princess prior to her marriage. Neither, despite Marina being born a princess, really had the legal right to be using the princess title in the UK.
George V changed the rules for titles in 1917 and no foreign titles were allowed for British citizens. eg Prince Louis of Battenberg became Lord Louis Mountbatten.
Therefore Princess Katherine of Greece on becoming a British citizen with her marriage would have been plain Mrs Katherine Branham, but as she was a Greek princess George VI gave her the right to be styled as the daughter of a British Duke so in the UK she was Lady Katherine, outside she was Princess Katherine. In the European court regarding compension on properties lost in Greece the 2002 ruling called her Princess Katherine, she received some compensation from the Greek government.

 

[Charlotte1]

Royal engagements in 2006 - Comment - Times Online
Royal engagements in 2007 -Times Online

All engagements differ as to time and content and there is also the time taken in preparation.
It works both ways, unless one has seen his diary, it is unfair to presume he does anything extra. The same applies to Charles, Camilla and Anne of course.
And yet by taking his daughter with him, he has shown that he is willing to abuse his position. It strikes me that Andrew sees these visits as a 'get the meeting out of the way, then I can really enjoy my holiday' event.The civil list was altered a few years ago. The only people who receive money from the revised list are HM & Philip. Out of the money she receives, she gives allowances to her family. To stretch it still further would take a miracle I would think and we don't know if Charles will be willing to part with the money on less productive family members. Someone posted a story, that Charles would remove the HRH from his nieces in an effort to slim down the royal family. I can't see Beatrice or Eugenie being thought so fondly of as Alexandra or Katherine Kent. All IMO of course.

The link you provided that has Tim O'Donovan's figures don't show private meetings, only the public ones which are in The Court Circular, therefore we still don't know about the private briefings that Andrew has. (or other royals except Charles and Camilla as Clarence House does publish those details)

Andrew's meetings in Egypt began on Monday ( it's in the official calendar) Beatrice was there with him on the previous Friday so he wasn't out playing tourist with his daughter instead of going to meetings, he went to Egypt for a private visit before his official meetings began.

I know the Civil List only goes to QEII and Philip, but realistically with Alexandra aged 71 and her brother 72, they will be reducing their engagements even further, therefore they will be receiving even less money from what the Queen gives them from the Civil List. They could also retire as the Duchess of Kent has done and therefore there's no money going to her. The Gloucestors are in their 60's again they will probably reduce their workload as Beatrice and Eugenie ( I would suggest within the next 10 or so years) take a more active role, therefore there's no need for the Civil List allowances to stretch the budget.

The "Way Ahead" group did discuss back in the 1990's to slim down the HRHs, the suggestion being that Beatrice and Eugenie become Lady Beatrice, etc on their 18th birthdays, well Beatrice is 19 and that didn't happen so the slimming down will happen with natural attrition. Older members retiring, realistically currently there are 12 HRHs ( plus 2 "unofficial ones" who perform some duties, the Michaels of Kent) who carry out fulltime royal engagments, as well as 2 'part-time' William and Harry. Once the Kents and Gloucestors retire and Charles and Camilla get 'the top job' there will be 6 senior royals plus William and Harry and their spouses if they're married. So more than likely Beatrice and Eugenie will be the 'junior royals' the same role currently held by the 4 Gloucestors and Kents.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

George V changed the rules for titles in 1917 and no foreign titles were allowed for British citizens. eg Prince Louis of Battenberg became Lord Louis Mountbatten.

I could only find the Royal Proclamation by George V. of 1917 where he declared to "relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities" on behalf of all descendants of queen Victoria who are "subjects of these Realms". In addition the Titles Deprivation Act was introduced by Parliament, according to which enemies of the United Kingdom during WWI could be deprived of their peerage and royal titles. Its long title was An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of British Dignities and Titles. [8th November 1917.]

But I couldn't trace a law that automatically strips foreign Royality of their rank once they become British citizens? Can you help me?

As for Marina of Kent: all I could find was this from a Wiki-article: "Upon her marriage in 1934, Princess Marina became HRH The Duchess of Kent, Countess of St. Andrews, and Baroness Downpatrick. However, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right. Following her elder son's wedding, she simply reverted to her own substantive princely title." and other sources with similar info.

As for Patricia of Connaught: she lived in a time where precedence still was regareded as very important, so the fact that her husband decided not to take the king up on his offer of a peerage meant that this created all kinds of unpleasant situations for the princess and her husband - they couldn't be introduced together on attending official occasions because she was so much higher in rank and royality to boot. While the marriage of an earl's son to a duke's daughter posed no problems, as this was rather "common" in Britain. So Patricia asked to be allowed to relinquish her titles and the same reasoning applies to Katherine Brandram, I think.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

No Philip got rid of his title as he became a British citizen, as a British citizen he couldn't be a Prince of Greek and Denmark. Philip wanted a career in the Royal Navy and had applied to be a British citizen in 1942 or 43 but as there was a war on nothing was done. After the war he deferred again until the monarchy was restored in Greek in as he didn't want to renounce his claim while the outcome of the referendum to the return on the monarchy was run. Once the Greeks returned in 1946 then his application for British citizenship went through. Regardless of whether he married The Princess Elizabeth, becoming a British citizen he would not have been Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark but rather Philip Mountbatten.

That's not the complete truth. In 1957 the House of Lords as the final level of jurisdiction confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, that according to the Statute of 1705 (4 and 5 Anne C16) all descendants of the Electress Sophia are born with British nationality. It had been prince Ernest August of Hanover who had applied for the British citizenship and he got while still be recognized as HRH The Prince of Hanover in Britain. So it is possible, at least for descendents of the electress Sophia to keep their Royal titles of other countries while being British citizens. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark is a direct descendant of the Electress Sophia and thus he was bron with the British citizenship according to this Statute. So needed not relinquish his titles at all, but did so because in 1947 the British public would not have looked too graciously at their heiress presumptive marrying a foreign prince.

BTW - Princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark was a descendant of the electress Sophia as well as she was the granddaughter of Vicky, Princess Royal (empress Frederick of Germany).

Of course the normal way for a Royal on marrying a British subject and on asking for the naturalization would have been to simply ask the king for the formal recognition of the foreign title and style. This was normally granted without problems, no matter what the gender of the applying Royal.

Edit: I just saw that a law passed in 1932 ended the possibility of the king granting such a "Royal license" when it came to foreign titles of nobility. I couldn't find anything about the question of Royal titles, though, except that Ernest August of Hanover with his British passport of 1957, was granted permission to marry Chantal Hochuli and was named as HRH in the public announcement (from: Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents)

At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 10th day of June 1981

Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Her Majesty was this day pleased, in pursuance of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, to declare Her Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Georg of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Countess Monika of Solms-Laubach, which Consent Her Majesty has caused to be signified under the Great Seal and to be entered in the Books of the Privy Council.

Her Majesty was also pleased, under the said Act, to declare Her Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover and Chantal Hochuli, which Consent also Her Majesty has caused to be signified under the Great Seal and to be entered in the Books of the Privy Council.

(33 SI) N. E. Leigh


June 10, 1981 (Gazette 48638)

Quite some members of the Greek Royal family are born either in the UK or are descendants of the Electress Sophia, so could ask for a British passport. The queen recognises their Royal titles and styles on Royal occasions, even though the government does not on official functions. .

 

[Skydragon]

The link you provided that has Tim O'Donovan's figures don't show private meetings, only the public ones which are in The Court Circular, therefore we still don't know about the private briefings that Andrew has. (or other royals except Charles and Camilla as Clarence House does publish those details)

Therefore one can only presume that Andrew has private meetings.

Andrew's meetings in Egypt began on Monday ( it's in the official calendar) Beatrice was there with him on the previous Friday so he wasn't out playing tourist with his daughter instead of going to meetings, he went to Egypt for a private visit before his official meetings began.

And did he pay for the flights for their private visit, their accomodation etc, no I don't expect he did, he tied his jolly in with an official trip! The same complaint that he abuses his 'position', as he did when he flew to meet the 'family' for a ski trip, at the expense of the taxpayer.

So more than likely Beatrice and Eugenie will be the 'junior royals' the same role currently held by the 4 Gloucestors and Kents.

I have serious doubts as to whether Beatrice and Eugenie will ever play a role once Charles becomes King. The popularity of the monarchy is in decline and the antics of William, Harry, Beatrice & Eugenie, will help speed the decline. It is the old problem that if a male sleeps around he is just sowing his oats, doing what is natural, proves he's a real man. If a woman does it, she is a tart, a whore, the village bike.

Unless Beatrice improves her image now, she can forget being seen as a representative of HM, now or in the future. IMO.

 

[Charlotte1]

From the Court Circular, Andrew's day in Egypt. An example of what public meetings are. January 14th

BUCKINGHAM PALACE: The Duke of York, Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, today carried out the following engagements in Cairo, Egypt.

His Royal Highness this morning attended a Meeting with Mr. Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit (Minister of Foreign Affairs) at the Tahrir Palace.

The Duke of York afterwards called upon Dr. Ahmed Nazif (Prime Minister) at the Council of Ministers.

His Royal Highness later attended a Meeting with directors of Barclays at the Grand Hyatt Hotel.

The Duke of York, accompanied by Rachid Mohamed Rachid (Minister for Trade and Industy), this afternoon attended a Meeting of the Egyptian British Business Council at the Nile Hilton Hotel.

His Royal Highness later attended a Meeting with Mahmoud Mohielddin (Minister of Investment) at the Ministry.

The Duke of York subsequently called upon Sameh Fahmi (Minister of Petroleum) at the Ministry.

His Royal Highness this evening attended a Reception given by Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Arab Republic of Egypt (His Excellency the Hon. Dominic Asquith).

The Duke of York afterwards attended a Dinner with young entrepreneurs.

Now the private meetings which all royals have would be to prepare for their engagements, since Andrew has staff, private secretaries, other team members from the Trade and Investment board he meets with them. These meetings are not listed in the Court Circular but just like we know the Queen goes through the 'red boxes' and meets with her staff, then it's not a huge presumption that Andrew does have private meetings.

As far as not paying for a private visit, the Trade and Investment board expenses are audited, if Andrew used them to pay for his hotel, trip expenses when he wasn't on an official visit, the information can be discovered and more than likely become front page news! It hasn't, hasn't in the past either so while it's easy to criticise that he attaches a private visit to a public one, it doesn't follow that he uses their money to pay for it. The Trade and Investment board are accountable for their expenses, as is Andrew when he's on an official trip with them.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Unless Beatrice improves her image now, she can forget being seen as a representative of HM, now or in the future. IMO.

But at the moment she is traveling with her father and surely accompanying him to official functions, so she is starting to learn the ropes, isn't she?

 

[Charlotte1]

I could only find the Royal Proclamation by George V. of 1917 where he declared to "relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities" on behalf of all descendants of queen Victoria who are "subjects of these Realms". In addition the Titles Deprivation Act was introduced by Parliament, according to which enemies of the United Kingdom during WWI could be deprived of their peerage and royal titles. Its long title was An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of British Dignities and Titles. [8th November 1917.]

But I couldn't trace a law that automatically strips foreign Royality of their rank once they become British citizens? Can you help me?

As for Marina of Kent: all I could find was this from a Wiki-article: "Upon her marriage in 1934, Princess Marina became HRH The Duchess of Kent, Countess of St. Andrews, and Baroness Downpatrick. However, she remained a Princess of Greece and Denmark in her own right. Following her elder son's wedding, she simply reverted to her own substantive princely title." and other sources with similar info.

As for Patricia of Connaught: she lived in a time where precedence still was regareded as very important, so the fact that her husband decided not to take the king up on his offer of a peerage meant that this created all kinds of unpleasant situations for the princess and her husband - they couldn't be introduced together on attending official occasions because she was so much higher in rank and royality to boot. While the marriage of an earl's son to a duke's daughter posed no problems, as this was rather "common" in Britain. So Patricia asked to be allowed to relinquish her titles and the same reasoning applies to Katherine Brandram, I think.

The descendants of Sophia the Electress automatically being British citizens apparently was something that was overlooked prior to the 1950's might also have something to do with anti-German feeling at the time. Philip's sisters were allowed at his wedding due to their German marriages, public sentiment wouldn't have been too high knowing that various German descendent of Sophia the Electress were automatic British citizens, especially as some such as the Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha was a well known Nazi.

Philip has confirmed in a letter to a royal historian that he wrote to the Greek King George II in 1942 ( or 43 I can't remember exactly) saying that he was going to renounce his Greek succession rights and citizenship to become a British citizen. This was pretty much at the urging of his uncle Mountbatten who knew that Philip couldn't rise up in the British Navy as a Greek prince.

A PS to the Sophia Naturalisation Act, that I've just more information on. Prior to the 1950's when Ernst August brought it up even the British government of the day didn't know about it. Neither Philip nor Katherine had to become British citizens but it wasn't something that was well known, a forgotten fact. Again using Philip's sisters as an example being descendents of the Electress Sophia they were technically British citizens but they were considered Germans and not allowed at the wedding.

 

[ysbel]

Some of the comments here are going beyond the bounds of useful and intelligent criticism and they are beginning to read like a bash board which most of you said that you didn't want.

No more nicknames like 'Airmiles Andy' or saying Sarah and Beatrice should be shipped off to America. You know these one word or two word putdowns that seem so clever and funny when you write them. But when seen like this, they're not funny, not witty, and too many comments like these makes for a hostile environment for anyone who disagrees with your assessment to participate in the discussion.

As I said before, if you want constructive criticism to remain on the boards, stick closely to the idea you are trying to express rather than wasting your energy and our time with trying to be witty at a Royals (or another member's) expense.

ysbel
British forums moderator

 

[Roslyn]

I could only find the Royal Proclamation by George V. of 1917 where he declared to "relinquish and discontinue the use of all German Titles and Dignities" on behalf of all descendants of queen Victoria who are "subjects of these Realms". In addition the Titles Deprivation Act was introduced by Parliament, according to which enemies of the United Kingdom during WWI could be deprived of their peerage and royal titles. Its long title was An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of British Dignities and Titles. [8th November 1917.]

But I couldn't trace a law that automatically strips foreign Royality of their rank once they become British citizens? Can you help me?

This might be of use: Foreign Titles in the UK

 

[Skydragon]

One has to wonder if the one day you quote, will count as nine events when the list is published next year!

Now the private meetings which all royals have would be to prepare for their engagements, since Andrew has staff, private secretaries, other team members from the Trade and Investment board he meets with them. These meetings are not listed in the Court Circular but just like we know the Queen goes through the 'red boxes' and meets with her staff, then it's not a huge presumption that Andrew does have private meetings.

These are not the private meetings I was discussing, perhaps we lost one another along the way. I'm talking about 'private', unpublicised meetings with members of the public. We couldn't possibly compare meetings between the royals and their office staff. Mr B working for royal P may be less efficient than Mr G working for royal R. Mr B could spend 30 minutes of his meeting drinking tea, while Mr G may get straight to the point.

As far as not paying for a private visit, the Trade and Investment board expenses are audited, if Andrew used them to pay for his hotel, trip expenses when he wasn't on an official visit, the information can be discovered and more than likely become front page news! It hasn't, hasn't in the past either

Prince Andrew spends £4,000 of taxpayers money on private jet| News | This is London
Fury As Prince Uses Royal Jet For Hols |Sky News|UK News

he diverted an RAF jet to take him to so while it's easy to criticise that he attaches a private visit to a public one, it doesn't follow that he uses their money to pay for it. The Trade and Investment board are accountable for their expenses, as is Andrew when he's on an official trip with them.

Well he doesn't appear to have been asked to repay the money from diverting the jet. Whilst the T&I are accountable for some of the costs, just like MP's, afaik, Andrew can spend a certain amount without providing receipts. Heather Brooke: There's nothing private about an MP's expenses - Independent Online Edition > Commentators

 

[Skydragon]

But at the moment she is traveling with her father and surely accompanying him to official functions, so she is starting to learn the ropes, isn't she?

According to the very few news reports that have been on, she has been on holiday with her father.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

This might be of use: Foreign Titles in the UK

Thank you, Roslyn. I read this but it doesn't concern Royal titles or the titles of foreign Royals married to British citizens, just the titles of nobility which were acquired through foreign service (eg The duke of Wellington had been granted the title of a Spanish (or Portugese?) count and his heirs use it. Other British citizens worked for the emperor, so were granted titles of the Holy Roman empire).

 

[Bella]

From the Court Circular, Andrew's day in Egypt. An example of what public meetings are. January 14th


Now the private meetings which all royals have would be to prepare for their engagements, since Andrew has staff, private secretaries, other team members from the Trade and Investment board he meets with them. These meetings are not listed in the Court Circular but just like we know the Queen goes through the 'red boxes' and meets with her staff, then it's not a huge presumption that Andrew does have private meetings.

As far as not paying for a private visit, the Trade and Investment board expenses are audited, if Andrew used them to pay for his hotel, trip expenses when he wasn't on an official visit, the information can be discovered and more than likely become front page news! It hasn't, hasn't in the past either so while it's easy to criticise that he attaches a private visit to a public one, it doesn't follow that he uses their money to pay for it. The Trade and Investment board are accountable for their expenses, as is Andrew when he's on an official trip with them.

This is correct.