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

[Osipi]

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?

What seems to be a real possibility for me is that as Beatrice and Eugenie settle down and perhaps start a family, they will be able to maintain their CoS roles as well as perhaps take on royal duties as far as charities and such (they've certainly attended these with their mother and father countless times). Perhaps their spouses will continue in their own chosen professsions (I believe Dave Clarke works for Virgin and Richard Branson correct?). I'm sure they'll both find their own niche and balance in due time.

Now for an amusing thought. Beatrice and Dave could have several children and all of them be musically inclined. In the style of the Von Trapp family, they could perform for charities as none other than the Dave Clarke 5.

 

[Zonk]

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?

Because people see what they want to see and aren't open to the possibility of Beatrice and Eugenie becoming full fledged members of The Firm.

They will spout the usual that Charles wishes to decrease the size of the BRF when he becomes King when in reality, life will do that with the deaths of several members of the BRF (the Queen, DoE, the Kents, and the Gloucesters). Even if those mentioned don't die in the next 5 to 10 years they are getting older, and I would expect them to reduce (not eliminate) their duties. People like to talk negatively about junior members of the BRF (mainly in the press) but the fact is that the junior royals do their fair share of work on behalf of the BRF.

Some will even say that a lot of the patronage that is done by the royals will and can be done by movie stars and/or celebrities. Not counting the fact that while most charities will welcome celebrity involvement...celebrity fame is fickle. Cheryl Cole or Kate Winslet (for example) might be hot now...but what about in a couple of years. Charities like presige and stability.....can anyone name the biggest British singer and actors from five years ago?

They also like to mention the life span of the Queen Mother...well that's all well and good...but not everyone is guaranteed such a long and fruitful life.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I think that there's an exception for unmarried royal women and older girls--i.e. young adult princesses.

Only married women? Princess Anne as a young woman wore tiaras.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Exactly. And even without disease, there's the possibility of accident or assassination. One doesn't like to dwell on such things, but there's also the possibility of suicide.

They also like to mention the life span of the Queen Mother...well that's all well and good...but not everyone is guaranteed such a long and fruitful life.

 

[muriel]

Because people see what they want to see and aren't open to the possibility of Beatrice and Eugenie becoming full fledged members of The Firm.

I do think that is quite a provocative statement to anybody who does not share a completely positive view of B&E, or feel they do not have a major role in the future BRF.

 

[Zonk]

I do think that there are a lot of people (not here of course) who don't like B&E because of who their parents are and what they think that B&E represent. They think that they are spongers. Think some of the Daily Mail readers and the like.

I do think that some people think that when the lot of the current family dies and/or retires that Charles, Camilla, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Andrew, William, Harry, Kate and Harry's wife will be able to do the work that is currently done by the Queen, DoE, the kids and their spouses, the Kents and the Gloucesters. I don't think that is possible.

I remember reading the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester's biography and she is talking about how her son and daughter in law do SO MUCH more than they did with less. Less money and less support (in terms of assistants, etc.). On one hand I see why people think that celebs could do some of the patronages that royals do...but I don't see that being a good fit. Celebrity is fickle and really, having a royal as your patron is ideal in terms of prestige and stablity (unless its someone respected for doing charity work like Elizabeth Taylor, Angelina Jolie, Audrey Hepburn, etc.)

That's why I think that B&E will become working members of the BRF.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think that there are a lot of people (not here of course) who don't like B&E because of who their parents are and what they think that B&E represent. They think that they are spongers. Think some of the Daily Mail readers and the like.

I do think that some people think that when the lot of the current family dies and/or retires that Charles, Camilla, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Andrew, William, Harry, Kate and Harry's wife will be able to do the work that is currently done by the Queen, DoE, the kids and their spouses, the Kents and the Gloucesters. I don't think that is possible.

I remember reading the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester's biography and she is talking about how her son and daughter in law do SO MUCH more than they did with less. Less money and less support (in terms of assistants, etc.). On one hand I see why people think that celebs could do some of the patronages that royals do...but I don't see that being a good fit. Celebrity is fickle and really, having a royal as your patron is ideal in terms of prestige and stablity (unless its someone respected for doing charity work like Elizabeth Taylor, Angelina Jolie, Audrey Hepburn, etc.)

That's why I think that B&E will become working members of the BRF.

So you are saying that William, Kate, Harry and his wife can't pick up the work currently being done by The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent (the only three of them working) pluse start to pick up the Queen and DoE's engagments remembering that Camilla also needs to pick up her level of engagements.

Simply arithmetic would say that they could.

Gloucesters and Kents do about 300 between them a year (less than 1 per day between the three of them), the Queen about 400 and Philip about 500. That's 1200 to be divided between William, Kate, Harry and his wife, plus Camilla and even Charles to increase his workload from around 500 to the 700 or so his mother was doing in her 60s.

Remember that William and Harry are doing about 100 between them at the moment but that number will need to increase, particularly by William and Kate to at least 500 each per day.

There is no need for Beatrice and Eugenie.


If that is the lifestyle the girls want then fine - but really they can have a real life with a real career if they want one - like the Linleys and Chatto's (also the children of the second child of the monarch).

 

[muriel]

Let's see - the Gloucesters and Kents do about 300 engagements between them a year - less than one a day.

I do think that there is probably enough "capacity" with the existing royals (and the wives of William and Harry) for the medium term. If there were to be "shortages" in 10-15 years when Anne and Andrew may want to slow down, I am sure the York girls could be asked to step up to the plate, if really required. That will allow te girls the opportunity to establish themselves intheir independent careers, and possibly gain the credibility required.

 

[Zonk]

Let's see - the Gloucesters and Kents do about 300 engagements between them a year - less than one a day.

Yes...300 engagements...not a lot..but than you consider than the Queen and DoE will eventually slow down....how many patronages from the late Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were picked up by existing members of the Firm? Charles, Andrew, Anne and Edward will not be able to maintain their existing schedules...unlike the Queen Mother....who says they are going to live to be 100?

 

[MRSJ]

Remember that William and Harry are doing about 100 between them at the moment but that number will need to increase, particularly by William and Kate to at least 500 each per day..

500 a day? Seems impossible to me-

I see no reason B& E can't be working royals (assuming they and the Monoarch wish for them to be) - I am sure there is plenty of charities, events and patronages to go around -

 

[Zonk]

300 a year...I think thats a rather short estimate...

Three? Don't you mean 4....The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

Charles does a good amount of work...I can't imagine Camilla doubling her engagements...

I have to go to work...but I will check the work stats this afternoon.

 

[Iluvbertie]

300 a year...I think thats a rather short estimate...

Three? Don't you mean 4....The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

Charles does a good amount of work...I can't imagine Camilla doubling her engagements...

I have to go to work...but I will check the work stats this afternoon.

Princess Alexandra does do much any more having cut back heavily since her husband died.

 

[Iluvbertie]

500 a day? Seems impossible to me-

oops - I did mean per year of course

I see no reason B& E can't be working royals (assuming they and the Monoarch wish for them to be) - I am sure there is plenty of charities, events and patronages to go around -

That is the issue though isn't it?

Do they want to or are they simply expected to?

Margaret's children have their own careers and Margaret was the second child. Anne's children have their own careers so why not Andrew's?

The public really don't want a lot of minor royals around the place.

The Gloucesters and Kents stepped up in a time when there weren't really any other options for royals but these days the situation is way different.

If they want to spend their lives opening hospitals and making small talk with people they meet for about 5 minutes at a time - fine but - if they were prefer a fulfilling life doing other things, like Peter and Zara, David and Sarah, then they should be able to do so.

I get the very distinct idea that Charles and William don't want them doing royal stuff. To me Charles sees his family as the 'royal' family and the others as more hangers on and in his reign he won't really want his neices around much. William, even more so - he wants to modernise the family (as Charles also did at his age) - and I can see him saying he doesn't want them around the royal round of things.

As for the public - I get the impression that they really don't care which celebrity turns up - one who has earned the status through their achievements or the one who is a celebrity due to being born.

 

[Zonk]

oops - I did mean per year of course




That is the issue though isn't it?

Do they want to or are they simply expected to?

Margaret's children have their own careers and Margaret was the second child. Anne's children have their own careers so why not Andrew's?

The public really don't want a lot of minor royals around the place.

The Gloucesters and Kents stepped up in a time when there weren't really any other options for royals but these days the situation is way different.

If they want to spend their lives opening hospitals and making small talk with people they meet for about 5 minutes at a time - fine but - if they were prefer a fulfilling life doing other things, like Peter and Zara, David and Sarah, then they should be able to do so.

I get the very distinct idea that Charles and William don't want them doing royal stuff. To me Charles sees his family as the 'royal' family and the others as more hangers on and in his reign he won't really want his neices around much. William, even more so - he wants to modernise the family (as Charles also did at his age) - and I can see him saying he doesn't want them around the royal round of things.

As for the public - I get the impression that they really don't care which celebrity turns up - one who has earned the status through their achievements or the one who is a celebrity due to being born.

That's a little strong isn't it?

Charles see his family as the "royal" family and the others as more hangers on? And you can see William saying he doesn't want them around the royal way? And you know this how?

I am pretty much done with this.

 

[MRSJ]

Three? Don't you mean 4....The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester..

What about Prince and Princess Michael? Just today I aw pics of him at an event so they some (maybe not 300) right?

 

[Zonk]

What about Prince and Princess Michael? Just today I aw pics of him at an event so they some (maybe not 300) right?

Apparently they are not the real royal family despite their continued work (and that of his brother, sister (and their spouses) and cousins) on behalf of the Queen, are considered to be hangers on by the next King and don't count for much.

So Richard of Gloucester giving up his career as an architect, Eddie as a soldier and Alexandra doing anything else means nothing to Charles

 

[Kataryn]

It depends on what the girls really want: what kind of job they wish for (if at all), who they are going to marry.. so many things that are not known at the moment, not even to themselves, I guess.

I personally think Charles is too much a "pro" when it comes to all things Royal to not want as much members of his family to be present in a positive, "regal" way in public. Even thought the Royals need not win any elections, they're still dependant on public opinion, just like the elected parliamentarians. And there's a point any of them learns that it's not the most important things to have a lot of media attention, but to be important to the people of their constituency. These people need to see you there, they need to feel that they can approach you.

And I believe Charles realises that his familiy's "constituency" includes the whole of Britain. So to be really present for the people, they Royals must be there. Not in London or in the paper, but on the streets, in the schools, in hospitals, on fairs...They need to go where the people are or go to.

So even if Eugenie or Beatrice decide only to do 10-20 events for charities, they are seen by the people and that's whats important for all of them of Clan Windsor. And the media understands that. Or why would Zara and Peter be referred to as "Royal" otherwise? Even though they have no titles they are family members and thus are important for the RF and their perception by the people.

 

[muriel]

Apparently they are not the real royal family despite their continued work (and that of his brother, sister (and their spouses) and cousins) on behalf of the Queen, are considered to be hangers on by the next King and don't count for much.

So Richard of Gloucester giving up his career as an architect, Eddie as a soldier and Alexandra doing anything else means nothing to Charles

Sure, there was a time the Gloucesters and Kents were required, and their service to the crown was no doubt appreciaed by the monarch of the day. That does not mean the next monarch needs to follow the very same policy as his mother did. Times have changed, and so must the royal family.

 

[Al_bina]

Well ... Prince Charles and his two sons with their spouses and future children can pick up all the engagements. That should streamline the operations within the Firm and somewhat please/placate taxpayers. The regal glamour will be gone though.
In light of the said, it would serve much better for both Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugine in the long run to become a private royal, make careers and undertake royal engagements rarely.

 

[Diarist]

Apparently they are not the real royal family despite their continued work ....

Please could you direct me to where I could make a post explaining some background information to Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, which I hope members of TRF will find interesting and helpful? I want to deal with why they [generally] do not carry out OFFICIAL royal duties.

I don't want to hijack the thread here, but often seem references in threads about questions relating to Prince and Princess Michael; I cannot however find a dedicated thread for them, but would like to help with some input.

Thank you

Alex.

 

[Osipi]

Please could you direct me to where I could make a post explaining some background information to Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, which I hope members of TRF will find interesting and helpful? I want to deal with why they [generally] do not carry out OFFICIAL royal duties.

I don't want to hijack the thread here, but often seem references in threads about questions relating to Prince and Princess Michael; I cannot however find a dedicated thread for them, but would like to help with some input.

Thank you

Alex.

Here you go. Hope this helps. http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-duke-and-duchess-of-kent-oct-2003-a-9756.html

 

[muriel]

Please could you direct me to where I could make a post explaining some background information to Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, which I hope members of TRF will find interesting and helpful? I want to deal with why they [generally] do not carry out OFFICIAL royal duties.

I don't want to hijack the thread here, but often seem references in threads about questions relating to Prince and Princess Michael; I cannot however find a dedicated thread for them, but would like to help with some input.

Thank you

Alex.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-5-september-2009-a-24823-31.html#post1230266

 

[Osipi]

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-5-september-2009-a-24823-31.html#post1230266

Yipes! I posted the wrong link. Thanks much Muriel!

 

[Iluvbertie]

So even if Eugenie or Beatrice decide only to do 10-20 events for charities, they are seen by the people and that's whats important for all of them of Clan Windsor. And the media understands that. Or why would Zara and Peter be referred to as "Royal" otherwise? Even though they have no titles they are family members and thus are important for the RF and their perception by the people.

Zara and Peter don't do royal duties but have private careers (although Zara's career is public because she is an international sports performer) but she doesn't do things for the royal family.

Beatrice and Eugenie hopefully will follow this path and have a life away from the public eye.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Neither Anne's children nor Margaret's children are Royal Highnesses. If they have the titles and the prestige that they bring, they should do the work.

Margaret's children have their own careers and Margaret was the second child. Anne's children have their own careers so why not Andrew's?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Neither Anne's children nor Margaret's children are Royal Highnesses. If they have the titles and the prestige that they bring, they should do the work.

Why?

They are all grandchildren of the monarch - no difference there.

 

[sliver_bic]

Why?

They are all grandchildren of the monarch - no difference there.

That lovely rule of male line grandchildren of a monarch.They're all in the line of succession which seems good enough for them.

 

[Bella]

I agree the whole distinction between HM's grandchildren is confusing. I remember reading years ago Pss Anne saying something along the line that her children aren't royals. And I thought, their grandmother is Queen and their cousins (on mum's side) are all royal, it was odd. I guess the HRH really makes the difference.
And yes, whereas Pss B & E have that HRH, I don't think they'll be able to blend into the mainstream as easily as Peter and Zara. And I don't think they'll need to. I still say that there will be plenty for them to do representing the BRF over the next decades.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree the whole distinction between HM's grandchildren is confusing. I remember reading years ago Pss Anne saying something along the line that her children aren't royals. And I thought, their grandmother is Queen and their cousins (on mum's side) are all royal, it was odd. I guess the HRH really makes the difference.
And yes, whereas Pss B & E have that HRH, I don't think they'll be able to blend into the mainstream as easily as Peter and Zara. And I don't think they'll need to. I still say that there will be plenty for them to do representing the BRF over the next decades.

Can you give examples of what they could do?

I can't think of anything that isn't already being done that could be picked up by these two - remembering that Kate will also have to pick up stuff herself over the next decade.

 

[Cailin Deas]

That lovely rule of male line grandchildren of a monarch.They're all in the line of succession which seems good enough for them.

it is not a "lovely rule" at all....Children (in ALL circles) take their rank from their father..Captain Philipps does NOT have a title of any kind and therefore his children do not either...Even though they are grandchildren of a reigning monacrh, they are still Mr. and Miss Philipps.... The York sisters are, for that reason, a different matter.