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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
See I dont think they have managed to tarnish the reputation of their girls.

I think there are a lot of mean nasty people in world who are jealous, are trying the girls for the sins of their fathers, have unreasonable expectations, have conflicting expectations, etc.

Recently it was Eugenie's 21st birthday, she didn't have a normal big party. It could be because of her personality as somone who stays out of the limelight, the recent York scandals or maybe because she wants to do it when its warmer, whatever.

So she gets some friends together to get biking treasure hunt in the Park...usual nasty comments about the girl about being a hanger on, her mother and father and royal security....a ride in the park? Really people...I mean what do they want from her?
 
See I dont think they have managed to tarnish the reputation of their girls.

I think there are a lot of mean nasty people in world who are jealous, are trying the girls for the sins of their fathers, have unreasonable expectations, have conflicting expectations, etc.

Recently it was Eugenie's 21st birthday, she didn't have a normal big party. It could be because of her personality as somone who stays out of the limelight, the recent York scandals or maybe because she wants to do it when its warmer, whatever.

So she gets some friends together to get biking treasure hunt in the Park...usual nasty comments about the girl about being a hanger on, her mother and father and royal security....a ride in the park? Really people...I mean what do they want from her?

William and Harry didn't get that but they're in the first line and their parents didn't get into what the Yorks have. Diana is all but a saint and Charles, though not the most popular member of the family, stays out of trouble. Zara and Peter are the same, she had her moments but her parents (including their stepfather) don't get into the sort of messes that the Yorks do.

Until they've become productive members of society the sins of the parents will stain them. Unfair? Hell yes and some of the comments are unnecessarily harsh but can you really blame them for thinking blood will out? When tree is considered rotten how can the fruit be anything else? That's how people are thinking.
 
I agree with Zonk, these girls unfortunatly will never win but hopefully can get a bit of a break if they're either in private careers or dutiful members of The Firm...

I find it rude and odd plp call them hangers on, they were born into the RF it's not like the choose who their parents/grandmother is... Truthfully by 21 most plp are still in school/partying so I don't get why some plp in news expect more from Bea and Eugenie-

Did William and Harry get such bad press for partying? If not, is that a boy v girl thing, or more to do w/ their parents or what?
 
I agree with Zonk, these girls unfortunatly will never win but hopefully can get a bit of a break if they're either in private careers or dutiful members of The Firm...

I find it rude and odd plp call them hangers on, they were born into the RF it's not like the choose who their parents/grandmother is... Truthfully by 21 most plp are still in school/partying so I don't get why some plp in news expect more from Bea and Eugenie-

Did William and Harry get such bad press for partying? If not, is that a boy v girl thing, or more to do w/ their parents or what?

Young adults are just finding their way into the adult world and socializing is a big part of that. The time between being in school and settling down and perhaps raising a family SHOULD be fun! They've got the energy and stamina to do it too. At their age, 9pm is when life started. Now I'm lucky to be half awake at that time. :cool:

With Beatrice and Eugenie, I think we will see things shift quite a bit as Charles becomes King and the girls find their niche in life. I think both Andrew and Sarah are going to gradually slip down on the "attention" scale as the main focus for the RF will be on Charles and Camilla, Will and Kate and Harry and his future wife and their families. Although the Gloucesters and the Kents are an integral part of the BRF, they're just not a focus of the media. This is how I see Charles' siblings and families gradually becoming. Whatever Beatirce and Eugenie decide to do with their lives, they will be more so in the background.
 
My view is that, like it or not, the parents actions will reflect on B&E in the short / medium term. If they go on to build careers in dependent of the BRF over he next decade or so and demonstrate their ability to stand squarely on their own two feet, they could, in the future, enter the royal fold and commence engagements. As of now, if they were to start after graduating, my sense is that people might question the value they add.
 
I know times have changed but everyone is basing the press, coverage and significance on Beatrice and Eugenie based on the Kents and Gloucesters.

If you go back 20 to 30 years ago before Diana, Sarah, William and Harry....news about the Kents and Gloucesters were news worthy. Look an old copy of a newspaper. A trip by the Duchess of Gloucester would have been a 2 to 3 page story in Majesty. Instead of just a picture shot.

People seem to think that the Kents and Gloucester decided to do royal duties because they wanted to. Until his brother and uncle died, Richard of Gloucester was an architect and partner in a firm. Alexandra and Edward of Kent chimed in because they were needed to fill a void. The same void that Beatrice and Eugenie might be needed to fill when the Kents, Gloucesters, Anne, the Queen and DoE are no longer available. The average age of that group is what 60 to 70?

That being said, certainly as William matures and has his family we shall see less of Beatrice and Eugenie but you shouldn't right write them off because of their parents and their rank in line of succession. Beatrice is after all No. 5....not to wish ill on William and Harry but they don't have normal jobs. Harry is a soldier with a desire to fight and William is a pilot with Search and Rescue. Which for some reason a lot of the British public seems to think is a cushy job. The Washington Post did a series of articles on rescue teams....a lot of unfortunate accidents that affect the teams.

Just saying...a happy medium....doing some enagements and being a part time curator, fashion assistant, or working for a family friend.
 
Last edited:
My view is that, like it or not, the parents actions will reflect on B&E in the short / medium term. If they go on to build careers in dependent of the BRF over he next decade or so and demonstrate their ability to stand squarely on their own two feet, they could, in the future, enter the royal fold and commence engagements. As of now, if they were to start after graduating, my sense is that people might question the value they add.

Excellently stated.

Their destinies are theirs to forge at this point, especially so now that William is marrying and more so when he and his bride have their first child.

They can prove themselves to be assets to other organizations outside of the BRF, much the way that many minor members of the (former) German royal family and aristocracy have done. Even the pretender to the Russian throne, Georgy Romanov, holds a responsible position that in no way compromises his intended later contributions to the Imperial "throne" or his aspirations there. With a solid resume backing them in the future, the princesses can choose to either continue their careers or apply to Charles or William for a way to assist the Firm.

I'm one who looks at the senior Yorks with a jaundiced eye - earned by their actions, I add - but do not hold the many foibles of the parents against the princesses. I suspect there are more others like myself than not.

The two York princesses can choose to apply their gifts to appropriate venues, or they can choose to squander them. I sincerely hope that they choose to emulate role models who applied their gifts....not waited to receive more.
 
Maybe the best thing for them is to marry well, have children and become involved in charitable organizations and events - as dated as that may sound.


I'm wondering if they can marry well.
Sarah is a big handicap in the marital stakes!

I remember reading an article about the young members of the aristocracy in current court circles, and who's dating who- but when it came to Beatrice and Eugenie the attitude was summed up: Shame about the mother.

I expect they will easily marry wealth (maybe even celebrities), but I'm wondering if they'll be considered desirable mates for any scions of those ancient noble families.
 
The granddaughters of the Queen of England and they are worried about the mother?! That's the kind of attitude I am talking about. Because no one in the English aristocracy has no type of bad buzz, scandals or baggage.
 
Last edited:
...Beatrice is after all No. 5....not to wish ill on William and Harry but they don't have normal jobs. Harry is a soldier with a desire to fight and William is a pilot with Search and Rescue. Which for some reason a lot of the British public seems to think is a cushy job. The Washington Post did a series of articles on rescue teams....a lot of unfortunate accidents that affect the teams.

I've never understood that either. SAR is very dangerous work, especially around all of those cliffs you guys have over there. They make it sound like Will sits around with his feet propped up watching the telly until the call comes in. They are constantly on training maneuvers in order to keep sharp. Over here, we all seem to realize that SAR is a very dangerous and stressful job and admire anyone who is willing to put their lives on the line for ours. But the British folks...I just don't get it.
 
I think it's quite ridiculous that mere nobility wouldn't want to marry Princess of the UK because of their mother, and if they don't it's okay because Eugenie and Beatrice outrank all of the British Nobility and most of the BRF since they are 5th and 6th in line to the throne respectively....
 
Young adults are just finding their way into the adult world and socializing is a big part of that. The time between being in school and settling down and perhaps raising a family SHOULD be fun! They've got the energy and stamina to do it too. At their age, 9pm is when life started. Now I'm lucky to be half awake at that time. :cool:

With Beatrice and Eugenie, I think we will see things shift quite a bit as Charles becomes King and the girls find their niche in life. I think both Andrew and Sarah are going to gradually slip down on the "attention" scale as the main focus for the RF will be on Charles and Camilla, Will and Kate and Harry and his future wife and their families. Although the Gloucesters and the Kents are an integral part of the BRF, they're just not a focus of the media. This is how I see Charles' siblings and families gradually becoming. Whatever Beatirce and Eugenie decide to do with their lives, they will be more so in the background.

Osipi, you raise a very good point. When I was young, sometimes my crowd didn't go out until 11pm. I would be home at 2a, but then I was a good girl.

I think it is terrible that these two young ladies are being railed on because of the stupid actions of their parents. Once they are on their own, the stigma will pass. They have got to do something; because eating bonbons and sitting around isn't good for anyone. I do hope they don't turn out to feel "worthless" because they had unwise parents.

As for Charles wanting to slim down the Firm, he may do that, but he is going to need the princesses. Even if both his sons have 6 kids each, he will be shorthanded. If his first grandchild is born next year, he'll be 85 when that child has finished college.

Love Charles as I do, it sort of smacks of his wanting to phase out the Monarchy.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the York girls will ever be stripped of their HRH. What would the point be? They can't pass the title/rank along to their children so it dies with them.

As for members of the aristocracy looking down their noses at the girls because of their mother . . . please . . . I don't believe for a minute that given the chance, any of those old noble dragons wouldn't want their son/grandson to marry into the BRF. To claim the granddaughter of HM - a royal Princess - as an in-law would indeed be a feather in any ancient family's cap. Trust me. And then to be able to boast their grandchild/great grandchild has "royal" blood . . . trust me, any snobbery about Sarah would be out the window.
 
I would just like to ask why Beatrice and Eugenie aren't like other princesses?and what I mean is that why don't they have at least their set of royal jewels and if they have a tiara like other princesses insted they wear big or funny hats and suits. But above all why they as princesses of York don't wear a sash or tiara ?
 
Grandduchess24 said:
I would just like to ask why Beatrice and Eugenie aren't like other princesses?and what I mean is that why don't they have at least their set of royal jewels and if they have a tiara like other princesses insted they wear big or funny hats and suits. But above all why they as princesses of York don't wear a sash or tiara ?

Because there has never been a reason for them to wear tiara's and sashes. They do not participate in state events that require those items. Weddings/ Ascot where they wear "funny hats" do not need tiara's. Why do they need a set of royal jewels when they do nothing royal?
 
Yep, the only events the York girls have attended have been day events that have required formal day wear. As for ceremonies such as state dinners or the opening of Parliament, that require tiaras and jewels, the girls have not been present and to be fair, neither have their cousins William and Harry.
I'm sure, in time, when they attend an event and Her Majesty wants them to wear tiaras, they will do so.
 
I would just like to ask why Beatrice and Eugenie aren't like other princesses?and what I mean is that why don't they have at least their set of royal jewels and if they have a tiara like other princesses insted they wear big or funny hats and suits. But above all why they as princesses of York don't wear a sash or tiara ?


Please can I try to help with this one? so far as Tiaras are concerned, it is british formal etiquette [I can't speak for other jurisdictions] that ONLY married women can wear tiaras. This comes from the same sort of custom-and-practice that provides that you say 'How do you do?' when you are introduced to someone [but not of course presented to the Queen.]. People here like to know the sources of my views, so all I can say on this one about tiaras is that this is the sort of information I just absorbed automatically from my family as a child. Any good etiquette book should be able to confirm about the tiara point.

By custom and practice, a bride who arrives at church is permitted to wear a tiara, although at the time of her arrival, she is of course an unmarried woman.

Don't confuse a tiara with a Coronet; if you can find pictures of the present queen's coronation, you will probably notice that the infant Prince Charles and Princess Anne (as she then was) were wearing 'something' on their heads - these were Coronets [i.e. the infant Princess Anne was not wearing a tiara]

I would also point out that you don't have to be Royal or from a noble background [I'm speaking about UK custom only, I can't speak for continental and other jurisdictions] to have a tiara. Indeed, a good few non-noble families own tiaras and many aristocratic families do not, having sold their tiaras [money problems possibly, e.g. to meet inheritance tax on death] and indeed from memory, one of Princess Margaret's Tiaras was auctioned by Viscount Linley. I am sure one of you royal-watchers will be able to confirm this.

It used to be a strict rule of etiquette that Tiaras were only worn with what is called 'White Tie' - i.e. at the most formal of occasions when gentlemen are required to wear tails and white tie, not 'so-called 'black tie' [which basically means Dinner Jacket, black bow tie etc etc. [Tiaras are also worn by Peeresses at the State Opening of Parliament].

Unkind people used to snipe at Princess Michael of Kent when she issued a photograph of herself in an exquisite gown, wearing a tiara; Prince Michael was photographed with her wearing 'black tie', not white tie.

Princess Michael obviously had the gift of special insight however; a few years after the photo was taken [I expect it is on the web somewhere, it is certainly in various books], the Queen held her special party in 1990 to celebrate the Queen Mother's 90th birthday, Princess Margaret's 60th Birthday, the Princess Royal's 40th birthday and Prince Andrew's 30th birthday. It was specified that 'White tie' was not to be worn, but that tiaras could be; the press were briefed that this is because the queen, knowing how ladies with tiaras loved to wear them and that there were few formal occasions any more when they could do so, specified that Tiaras could in fact be worn.

A bit of 'gossip' now; people who reckon they know about these things always say that there are only two hairdressers in London who know how to put on a tiara properly: Michael of Michaeljohn and Hugh in Ebury Street. There is a special knack to dressing hair for a tiara - the trick is to make sure that the velvet band on a tiara (i.e. base of tiara) is NEVER visible -- your hairdresser should be sufficiently competent to dress one's hair so the velvet band is never seen [don't foget that a tiara is mounted on a velvet band - a tiara is not fully round, like a crown or coronet would be]. Also, it is best if a hair piece is not used to try to 'bulk out' hair - fortunately Catherine has lovely hair - I remember though how you could clearly see the hairpiece used to 'pad out' the hair of Viscountess Linley at her wedding.

Another bit of information; during days when there is a 'White Tie' event on [usually in the evening, but the State Opening of Parliament is during the daytime], there may be as much as several hundred ladies needing their hairdresser to fix their tiara...and you can't necessarily get the appointment you want right just before the event. You therefore have to go and get your tiara fixed on when you can and so it is quite common to see ladies walking around London at 11am in Jeans, with scarves attempting to conceal the newly-fixed tiara beneath.

Hope this helps,

Alex
 
Last edited:
Don't confuse a tiara with a Coronet; if you can find pictures of the present queen's coronation, you will probably notice that the infant Prince Charles and Princess Anne (as she then was) were wearing 'something' on their heads - these were Coronets [i.e. the infant Princess Anne was not wearing a tiara]


Alex


Anne didn't attend the Coronation at all and the photos of Charles and Anne that day clearly show them with nothing on their heads. That includes photos of Charles in the Abbey with his Aunt Margaret and the Queen Mother. This photo shows Charles in the Abbey - nothing on his head but both his aunt and grandmother are wearing wearing headgear - http://tinyurl.com/3c72zj5

Later in the day both Anne and Charles joined their parents on the balcony - again nothing on their heads. http://tinyurl.com/3lajgajhttp://tinyurl.com/3lajgaj
You can see that a number of ladies are wearing headgear at this time - but not the children.

If you go back to the 1937 coronation however you can see both the princesses wearing headgear - http://tinyurl.com/4ysg7rf - but they were somewhat older (Elizabeth was 11 and Margaret 6.5 compared to Charles 4.5 and Anne nearly 3 when the present Queen was crowned).
 
Last edited:
Only married women? Princess Anne as a young woman wore tiaras.
 
Only married women? Princess Anne as a young woman wore tiaras.

I've often heard that tiaras were basically worn by married women also. Perhaps this is because on marriage, a wife takes on the titles and styles of her husband and would wear tiaras to white tie events that mark her status. With Anne, and then also with Beatrice and Eugenie, being of the blood royal, they would also have the status to wear a tiara as unmarried maidens. This sounds like the logical traditional view that would somewhat be based on the wearing of coronets. I'm not overly knowledgeable on this topic but just thinking out loud here. :flowers:
 
Only married women? Princess Anne as a young woman wore tiaras.


From memory, and I am not saying that you are wrong, Duchess Mary, the first photos I can remember of Princess Anne in a Tiara were when she was married. My memory could well be playing tricks though.....as it often does.

I do remember her Official 21st Birthday Photo though taken by Norman Hartnell. She was not wearing a tirara, although it was a very formal photo. She did wear a band and some decoraton on her head, but it was not a formal tiara as such.

I wonder if any member here can find a link to this photo of Princess Anne?; I personally think it is one of the best photos ever taken off the princess as she looks stunningly beautiful in my humble opinion.

Can any one here help me and find this photo? I think it would give a lot of pleasure to people here.
 
Anne didn't attend the Coronation at all and the photos of Charles and Anne that day clearly show them with nothing on their heads. That includes photos of Charles in the Abbey with his Aunt Margaret and the Queen Mother. This photo shows Charles in the Abbey - nothing on his head but both his aunt and grandmother are wearing wearing headgear - http://tinyurl.com/3c72zj5

Later in the day both Anne and Charles joined their parents on the balcony - again nothing on their heads. http://tinyurl.com/3lajgaj
You can see that a number of ladies are wearing headgear at this time - but not the children.

If you go back to the 1937 coronation however you can see both the princesses wearing headgear - http://tinyurl.com/4ysg7rf - but they were somewhat older (Elizabeth was 11 and Margaret 6.5 compared to Charles 4.5 and Anne nearly 3 when the present Queen was crowned).


Ah, thank you I love Bertie, I am sure that the 1937 Coronation Photo is what i meant - I used to work beneath photos of all the coronations of the 20th Century, and obviously they did not register clearly with me. I can clearly remember being taught the difference between Crown / Coronet, although I only know this in relation to the British Royal Family.

Alex
 
Tiaraquette

From personal research for a novel I wrote set in the 19th century, the English tradition was that noble and aristocratic women did not wear tiaras until they were married. Even for formal court presentation, unmarried women did not wear tiaras. This certainly persisted throughout at least the 19th and early 20th centuries.

However, royal women may have been exempt from such a rule. I do not know.

In the family portraits of Victoria and Albert in which she was in a tiara, the daughters were not. And one would have to examine photos of the weddings of Alix and Albert and May and George to see if their unmarried female sisters and relatives were 'tiara-ed.'
 
Let's get back on topic...the duties and roles of Beatrice and Eugenie.
 
From memory, and I am not saying that you are wrong, Duchess Mary, the first photos I can remember of Princess Anne in a Tiara were when she was married. My memory could well be playing tricks though.....as it often does.

I do remember her Official 21st Birthday Photo though taken by Norman Hartnell. She was not wearing a tirara, although it was a very formal photo. She did wear a band and some decoraton on her head, but it was not a formal tiara as such.

I wonder if any member here can find a link to this photo of Princess Anne?; I personally think it is one of the best photos ever taken off the princess as she looks stunningly beautiful in my humble opinion.

Can any one here help me and find this photo? I think it would give a lot of pleasure to people here.

I did find what I think you're looking for but as this is the thread about duties and roles for Beatrice and Eugenie, I'm going to post it in the royal jewels subforum. I find this totally fascinating.

One thing I will post is that Beatrice and Eugenia could very possibly wear a tiara before marriage. The photo I found of Anne shows her wearing one during her engagement to Mark Phillips.
 
When and if Beatrice and Eugenie begin attending formal state occasions they may or may not wear tiaras.

As they will be reduced, in time, to minor status, they may not ever even attend such functions.

They will become increasingly irrelevant to the royal picture and I do hope that we hear, later this year, that Beatrice is going to get a normal job and work 9-5 rather than spend her life doing not much really. She will, of course, have to live in Britain as she will probably spend a number of years as a Counsellor of State, assuming the present Queen doesn't live at least another 22 years (that allows William and Kate's first child to be born next year and for that child to turn 21 replacing a need for Beatrice to serve during Charles' reign as the CoS's are the next 4 adults over 21 in line to the throne - except when one of them is the heir who takes that position at 18 - currently the CoS's are Charles, William, Harry, Andrew and Philip as the Queen's spouse).

The more I think about their ages etc and the ages of the current working royals they really are going to be irrelevant. The current older royals will probably all still be working in 20 years by which time William and Kate and Harry and xxxx's kids will be approaching adulthood. The York girls really don't have a role in the royal family in the future - outside of CoS's - unless they really want to do that sort of thing but if they want to be more like Peter and Zara and get real jobs then there is no reason why they shouldn't do so.
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
I did find what I think you're looking for but as this is the thread about duties and roles for Beatrice and Eugenie, I'm going to post it in the royal jewels subforum. I find this totally fascinating..

I know it's not right thread but I search all over royal jewels and can't find pic, could you post a link to where in forum it is, please?
 
When and if Beatrice and Eugenie begin attending formal state occasions they may or may not wear tiaras.

As they will be reduced, in time, to minor status, they may not ever even attend such functions.

They will become increasingly irrelevant to the royal picture and I do hope that we hear, later this year, that Beatrice is going to get a normal job and work 9-5 rather than spend her life doing not much really. She will, of course, have to live in Britain as she will probably spend a number of years as a Counsellor of State, assuming the present Queen doesn't live at least another 22 years (that allows William and Kate's first child to be born next year and for that child to turn 21 replacing a need for Beatrice to serve during Charles' reign as the CoS's are the next 4 adults over 21 in line to the throne - except when one of them is the heir who takes that position at 18 - currently the CoS's are Charles, William, Harry, Andrew and Philip as the Queen's spouse).

The more I think about their ages etc and the ages of the current working royals they really are going to be irrelevant. The current older royals will probably all still be working in 20 years by which time William and Kate and Harry and xxxx's kids will be approaching adulthood. The York girls really don't have a role in the royal family in the future - outside of CoS's - unless they really want to do that sort of thing but if they want to be more like Peter and Zara and get real jobs then there is no reason why they shouldn't do so.

I agree with you. IMO, there really does not appear to be a substantial role for the York girls to play (other than as CoS), and they would be best advised to build lives for themselves independent off "The Firm", just as Zara and Peter have.

Query whether the girls and their parents see it this way as well?
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. IMO, there really does not appear to be a substantial role for the York girls to play (other than as CoS), and they would be best advised to build lives for themselves independent off "The Firm", just as Zara and Peter have.

Query whether the girls and their parents see it this way as well?

See I don't understand this opinion. Why, exactly, does it not appear so? The argument of Williams kids is faaaaar off, as they have yet to be conceived and then would require more than two decades before they even began to do anything. Harry seems to not be heading down that road anytime soon and Edward's kids seem like they'll be steered away from such positions so why, especially as the workload on others is lessened, can't the two find some niche within the firm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom