The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1361  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:23 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess B View Post
I was wondering if anybody else thought that if Sarah and Andrew were still married Ut would've been easier for Beatrice and Eugenie to have royal roles?
Yes and No.

Yes - because I think perhaps a family atmosphere would have allowed them to "show off" to the press.

No - because Sarah would still be Sarah and Andrew would still be Andrew. For some reason the girls are tainted by their parents bad decisions and are not allowed to be judge on their merits alone. You'd probably have to wipe the slate entirely clean and start from scratch with those two to allow Beatrice and Eugenie a shot.

Not sure when the "slim down" spin arrived from Charles, but again I think Sarah may have had an impact on his ideas.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1362  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:30 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Yes and No.

Yes - because I think perhaps a family atmosphere would have allowed them to "show off" to the press.

No - because Sarah would still be Sarah and Andrew would still be Andrew. For some reason the girls are tainted by their parents bad decisions and are not allowed to be judge on their merits alone. You'd probably have to wipe the slate entirely clean and start from scratch with those two to allow Beatrice and Eugenie a shot.

Not sure when the "slim down" spin arrived from Charles, but again I think Sarah may have had an impact on his ideas.
I answered this in the thread "Monarchy under Charles". Apparently, according to Richard Palmer, Royal correspondent of the Express, 1 comment was made by a spin doctor in the early 1990's - no other source; Palmer also said that the palace/CP do not brief on this at all. I've written this from memory but the actual twitter quotes are on the thread mentioned above.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1363  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I answered this in the thread "Monarchy under Charles". Apparently, according to Richard Palmer, Royal correspondent of the Express, 1 comment was made by a spin doctor in the early 1990's - no other source; Palmer also said that the palace/CP do not brief on this at all. I've written this from memory but the actual twitter quotes are on the thread mentioned above.
I've seen your quotes, jut couldn't remember the year.
Cutting the girls out early is like damage control before it happens IMO.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1364  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post

No - because Sarah would still be Sarah and Andrew would still be Andrew. For some reason the girls are tainted by their parents bad decisions and are not allowed to be judge on their merits alone.

Do you mean judged by Charles?
Or by the press?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1365  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:51 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Do you mean judged by Charles?
Or by the press?
Both I would go with.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1366  
Old 03-09-2013, 03:58 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
IF this was an active decision, Charles did not make it on his own.

In the early 1990s Andrew and Charles were married, had 2 young children and "slimming down" the BRF could be interpreted as just being the off-spring on HMQ, and not including Gloucesters, Kents etc. The Princess Royal had already intimated that her children would not be "royal". So just the Wales' and the Yorks would have been logical for the future.

We tend to consider "slimming down" in the context of what happened later - the messy divorces, bad behaviour, reputational damage. But that was not necessarily the case.

I think that it is ok for Beatrice and Eugenie to help out as they have been, with no cost to the tax payer. I think it is mean spirited not to give them credit for it by excluding them from the Court Circular.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1367  
Old 03-09-2013, 04:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
The Royal Family will be naturally slimmed down, because many of it's members are over 65 years old. The Prince of Wales seems not to have noticed this yet. One day, the two York Princesses will be needed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1368  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:03 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
The Royal Family will be naturally slimmed down, because many of it's members are over 65 years old. The Prince of Wales seems not to have noticed this yet. One day, the two York Princesses will be needed.
Have you read any of the earlier posts because it is not definite that it is the PoW decision. Don't you think that the Queen has any say at all?
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1369  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:06 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Have you read any of the earlier posts because it is not definite that it is the PoW decision. Don't you think that the Queen has any say at all?
Of course, the Queen is the only one who really has a say on this matter. But that's during Her reign.

I'm talking about what can happen in the next reign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1370  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
No - I think the idea has always been for them to be peripheral to the family's needs.

In the 30s, 40s and 50s as the monarchy was rebranding itself after the abdication and war and into a new reign there was a belief that the extended royals were needed to do a job to promote the concept of royalty and monarchy.

By the 80s that was changing and certainly into the 90s and beyond there have been clear signs of them not being needed.

When there was an empire and 50+ countries had the monarch in one form or another as Head of State there was a belief that the minor royals could help but now that the empire has gone, the monarch has only 15 other realms left and The Commonwealth is even saying that the monarch isn't necessary to its existence (the idea that Charles won't automatically be Head of the Commonwealth has been around for many years - particularly in the former colonies who still see the position of monarch as one of subjugation rather than equality).

There really is no need for the girls.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1371  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:12 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
but it's happening now. It's the queen who has decided not to include any work they do in the court circular. It's not Charles' decision.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1372  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
No - I think the idea has always been for them to be peripheral to the family's needs.

In the 30s, 40s and 50s as the monarchy was rebranding itself after the abdication and war and into a new reign there was a belief that the extended royals were needed to do a job to promote the concept of royalty and monarchy.

By the 80s that was changing and certainly into the 90s and beyond there have been clear signs of them not being needed.

When there was an empire and 50+ countries had the monarch in one form or another as Head of State there was a belief that the minor royals could help but now that the empire has gone, the monarch has only 15 other realms left and The Commonwealth is even saying that the monarch isn't necessary to its existence (the idea that Charles won't automatically be Head of the Commonwealth has been around for many years - particularly in the former colonies who still see the position of monarch as one of subjugation rather than equality).

There really is no need for the girls.
I believe the girls will be needed to perform the minor role that Princess Alexandra has today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1373  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:20 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
I agree. They are willing and able, judging by what they have done so far. They also have time on their hands. William and Harry are in the military. Lost opportunity in my opinion. But it's down to HMQ to sort it.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1374  
Old 03-09-2013, 05:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I agree. They are willing and able, judging by what they have done so far. They also have time on their hands. William and Harry are in the military. Lost opportunity in my opinion. But it's down to HMQ to sort it.
In 10-20 years, the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Gloucesters and the Kents, will be either dead or to old to be full-time working Royals.

Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne, will be in their 80's and 60's.

Willam, Harry and their wives will certainly taking the burden of duties that the Queen's children perform today.

But, the minor roles Her Majesty's cousins have today will be too much to be taken only by William and Catherine, Harry and Wife. So, I believe the York Princesses will be need. Either the Queen or Charles will notice this fact, soon or later.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1375  
Old 03-09-2013, 06:01 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 918
Don't you think the "slimming down" is one that other royal families have taken? Look at The Netherlands. The only HRH's are those who are children of the monarch. Constantijn's children aren't HRH's. In Norway, Martha-Louise's daughters aren't HRH's; and in Denmark, Joachim's children aren't HRH's.

Let's be mature, grow up, and stop perpetuating the Charles hates Andrew saga. After all, this slimming down will eventually affect his son Harry and his off-spring.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1376  
Old 03-09-2013, 06:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Just because other Monarchies have done that, doesn't means it's necessary also in Britain.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1377  
Old 03-09-2013, 06:04 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
Don't you think the "slimming down" is one that other royal families have taken? Look at The Netherlands. The only HRH's are those who are children of the monarch. Constantijn's children aren't HRH's. In Norway, Martha-Louise's daughters aren't HRH's; and in Denmark, Joachim's children aren't HRH's.

Let's be mature, grow up, and stop perpetuating the Charles hates Andrew saga. After all, this slimming down will eventually affect his son Harry and his off-spring.
Not sure why you mention the Charles hates Andrew thing, when this "slimming down" is at the minute coming from The Queen. Those countries have had slimmed down monarchy's for years, the BRF have not. When it comes down to it it's about the number of engagements the royal family does a year, and the number of people to do them. Not enough people and engagements, patronages, charities are going to be forgotten. It will be a pick a mix came as to who gets represented. That will not turn out favourably for Charles, IF that's the road he takes.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1378  
Old 03-09-2013, 06:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Not sure why you mention the Charles hates Andrew thing, when this "slimming down" is at the minute coming from The Queen. Those countries have had slimmed down monarchy's for years, the BRF have not. When it comes down to it it's about the number of engagements the royal family does a year, and the number of people to do them. Not enough people and engagements, patronages, charities are going to be forgotten. It will be a pick a mix came as to who gets represented. That will not turn out favourably for Charles, IF that's the road he takes.
I think the "slimming down" the one of the harsh realities of modern economic life -- royal or not. I do, however, agree with you that that since so many charities and groups in Britain have been fortunate to have "royal" attention (either as patrons or as guests at events) ... it's going to be interesting to see how Charles and William handle the slimming down. Organizations, rightfully so, will not want to feel ignored or snubbed. As wrote last June in the Queen's Jubilee thread ... the issue of royal patronages not the economics of the civil list will be a major issue. I think that Beatrice and Eugenie will be of "assistance" to their uncle and cousin in the future -- frankly, it's a matter of practicality. They will need family members to be patrons, attend events, etc ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1379  
Old 03-09-2013, 06:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
There is nothing to stop Beatrice & Eugenie from taking on patronages and doing charitable work on their own if they wish. Just because they don't get a mention in the CC is not an impediment as the Michaels of Kent have proven.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1380  
Old 03-09-2013, 06:53 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,436
How can anyone compare the scale of work required by the BRF with that of (say) the Netherlands and Denmark. There are over 60 million people in the Uk, plus the other realms, plus the Commonwealth. It is completely different. Unless and until the expectations of the population changes, the BRF will need more than 4-8 active members.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
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
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie: Old News and Photos Warren The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 93 09-11-2014 08:01 PM
Duties, Roles and Royal Training of the Princes JOY! Prince Harry and Prince William 214 02-20-2013 08:07 PM
Beatrice and Eugenie : Baby/child Pics: Part 1 Martine The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 133 03-04-2006 12:25 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 AM.

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]