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

[4Pam]

Just because Beatrice has had a several fashion mishaps that doesn't mean she'd be terrible at working in the industry. There are fashion editors, celebrities and so called fashionistas out there that have worn worst outfits than Beatrice. She can work in the marketing/PR, finance or human resources departments for the fashion houses. She can work as an editorial assistant, photographers assistant, buyer at Jigsaw or work at a modeling agency. If she wanted, she can work as a party planner with Pippa.

It won't be hard for her for her to find a job as she is the Queen's granddaughter, the heir's niece and the heir's heir cousin.

Whatever career path she chooses, she will be fine.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Working royal means that she would be performing official royal duties.

By turning down Andrew's request, the Queen basically said Beatrice and Eugenie will have to earn their own living and will not be getting money from the British tax payer.

As only two 'working royals' get money from the British taxpayer now that is a non-issue.

The taxpayers only give money to the Queen and Philip.

The rest get reimbursed for expenses incurred in the carrying our of official duties on behalf of the government e.g. Andrew when going abroad for his former job with International Trade then that expense would be paid by the government. If he goes abroad in support of a charity then either he or the charity pays the expenses.

The Queen also reimburses the government for monies paid to the members of the family from the former Civil List set up - up to 1992 most members of the family were paid from the government simply for being royal but after 1992 the Queen took to repaying the government these expenses - it was easier than passing new legislation for each member of the family.

In the future there will only be the monarch and spouse and surviving spouses of monarchs receiving monies and the rest will have to fend for themselves or the monarch will have to support them and Charles doesn't want to have to support the extras in the extended family - such as his mother's first cousins who are currently supported by the Queen and his siblings. I am sure that he will continue to do so but he is cutting the umbilical cord for future generations of his descendents and not loading them with that responsiblity so that for instance William's grandchild, when monarch won't have to support an aging Beatrice or Eugenie just because they have always been supported. By cutting it out now when they are early 20s they can make their own way in life.

 

[Mermaid1962]

These are my thoughts as well. In 20 years, Prince Charles will be 83 and Camilla will be a bit older, I believe. The Princess Royal will be 81. Prince Andrew will be 71 and Prince Edward will be 67. William and Kate will be getting very close to 50 and their oldest children--assuming they start a family soon--will be in university. There's going to be a need for a couple of extra hands to help while William and Harry's children are growing up, at least during the period from 10 to 20 years from now. If the health of the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are good, they'll be able to do things for awhile yet, as will the Gloucesters.

Unless more people are brought into the firm there are going to be a huge number of charities, etc. that will lose their royal patronages and connections, which I think would be a shame.

 

[sliver_bic]

Aren't most European monarchies made up of the monarch and their immediate family? Charles knows that his mother's death will bring a lot to bear on the firm (including a commonwealth that will likely shrink). His first job is to make sure that it survives so, if all this is true, he's trying to cut it down to the bare basics and if some charities take a hit then so be it. It's rough but he's going to do what he needs to do. That and we know his favorite charities won't be the ones to suffer.

 

[Nice Nofret]

If in 10 to 15 Years time, there is a need for "working" royals, B & E and the children of other Siblings could very well do jump in and get paid for that.

Now they are young, and can pick up a profession - which will do them good, and get a grip on live. Later on, maybe they are married, having kids, they can start some with some charities and do royal duties. And if they prefer privat live, they don't have to do anything royal at all.

The other way round is much harder: starting as working royal - and later having to fend for themselves.

 

[Zonk]

We go thru this discussion every couple of months.

It has been reported that Beatrice and Eugenie will not be working members of the Firm upon their graduation from college but really whose to say that will always be the case?

We hear that Charles wants to reduce the size of the royal family but he really doesn't have to do anything to do that as the size of the royal family because the natural order of life will decrease the size of the family. In the next five, ten, twenty years or so....the Queen, the DoE, the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra can all be gone. The Gloucesters, Anne, Edward, Sophie and Andrew will carry on. And William, Harry (and a future wife) and Kate will pick up more patronages. I don't include Charles because his work load will automatically increase and really Camilla will continue to support Charles.

Charles wont' do anything IMO with Beatrice and Eugenie's HRH because that calls into question the HRH status of Harry's future children. Plus the HRH title will not continue with their children so ends the HRH's for the current York line.

So with the natural order of life, the decrease in the working members of the royal family, and some good work experience....I see the possibility of Beatrice and Eugenie picking up some royal engagements in the future. Right now there is no need, but who knows what the next twenty years will bring.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Aren't most European monarchies made up of the monarch and their immediate family? Charles knows that his mother's death will bring a lot to bear on the firm (including a commonwealth that will likely shrink). His first job is to make sure that it survives so, if all this is true, he's trying to cut it down to the bare basics and if some charities take a hit then so be it. It's rough but he's going to do what he needs to do. That and we know his favorite charities won't be the ones to suffer.

Why do you think the Commonwealth will shrink?

It has actually increased membership over the last decade or so adding a couple of countries with no ties to Britain as a colonial master.

I do see more of the small number of countries of the Commonwealth who have the monarch of GB as their monarch becoming republics but that won't affect the Commonwealth at all, unless the existing members decide not to allow them to stay once they become republics. Countries with the Queen as Head of State are automatically members but if they vote to become a republic then they have to effectively apply for a continuation of membership and no country that has become a republic has been refused that application - it is more a formal acknowledgement that their automatic status has changed and that is all.

It seems to me that many people confuse the Commonwealth with the Queen's position as Queen of 16 countries of the Commonwealth. They are two separate situations. She is Queen of about 1/3 of the countries of the Commonwealth and that will change when she goes but the number of countries in the Commonwealth shouldn't see any change unless the other countries vote to suspend membership - e.g. Fiji and Pakistan have both had periods of time being suspended or a country decided to leave because it no longer sees any benefit in membership. Meanwhile some other countries could apply for membership and be accepted.

Most Australians I know only think of the Commonwealth Games and don't see any other role for Australia in that anyway.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If in 10 to 15 Years time, there is a need for "working" royals, B & E and the children of other Siblings could very well do jump in and get paid for that.

Now they are young, and can pick up a profession - which will do them good, and get a grip on live. Later on, maybe they are married, having kids, they can start some with some charities and do royal duties. And if they prefer privat live, they don't have to do anything royal at all.

The other way round is much harder: starting as working royal - and later having to fend for themselves.

I think this is wrong thinking. I think once they have a personal career it will be much harder to give up that for the royal circuit.

Whatever the long term intention is the family will have to live with the decisions made now - either the girls will work full-time from their early 20s for the Firm or not but Charles or William can't suddenly turn around in 20 years time and say - 'you have to give up your successful job and satisfying career to live your life doing the royal work we told you we didn't need you for years ago'.

Sorry - not fair to the girls to expect that to happen and it would be much harder I think to go from living a private life with a job and career and family set up for a quitem, private existence to then by put into the public life because the forward thinking decisions were wrong now.

I don't think they are wrong by the way.

Charles isn't stupid - he knows that the public don't really want the extras and the costs involved e.g. security when on public duties. He also knows that he would have to support them but also that he would be committing William to supporting them in an appropriate manner for the rest of their lives in the way that the Queen does now with her cousins.

Better to say - as the Gloucesters and Kents retire/die and as the present Queen's children also age and cut back that the public has to get used to not having a royal be the patrons and turn up to open every hospital wing etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really can't see how both girls won't be used for royal duties if they choose to do so. They are their own people despite who their mother is and it is not fair they they be punished for that. Not implying that Charles is heartless a smaller monarchy really doesn't matter to him as his kids future is already set so in a sense of saying that's no skin off his nose on that point. It's his brother's & sister's children who have to find a role in their future. However the truth of the matter is the current royal family is getting older and royal duties for older members of the BRF will decline more & more as time passes. I read somewhere since Will & Kate's wedding that interest in the BRF has increased so I would the royal duties from added interest will increase. Consider how old Charles could be by the time he becomes King. So I don't see how it would be wise two exclude two people who have the HRH already if they are willing to do the work......Just my thoughts.

Who is to pay them?

That is a crux of the issue. Currently the Queen repays to the government the moneys paid to the Gloucesters and Kents and Anne and Andrew but the situation changed financially for the family in 1992.

Until 1992 all HRHs effectively were paid by the government, through the Civil List for basically being royal but since then the Queen has had to support the extended family members as well as her own.

Charles and William would have to continue that into the future but...if Beatrice and Eugenie had their own careers then they would be able to support themselves, which is what the family now wants.

Bad luck for the charities that have come to expect a royal patron but so be it.

This is a consequence of the bad years of the early 90s when the concept of a 'royal family' was destroyed in many minds and the public became much more critical of the family and way more conscious of the costs of the royal family and actually question a need for anyone other than the monarch, heir and possibly the heir's heir and their respective spouses. When the 4th in line is described as minor royal you can see that the ideas have changed. Before the 1990s the cousins were the minor royals now it is the younger children of the monarch. In 15 or so years Harry will be relegated to minor royal status.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

It does not mean that she can't have a job that pays (quite the opposite - although I can see how you would take it that way). A working royal is one that the Queen pays to do royal tasks. Instead, the Queen has requested that the two princesses get regular jobs and stay off her payroll. Someone else might put it differently, that's the succinct version.

The Queen has no intention of laying out more "protection" (money) in that direction - she helps out Andrew to quite a stiff tune, he needs to find a way to support his daughters (if they can't be indepdent). The Queen has no intention of supporting all her grandchildren - nor should see, for when she is gone, the new King will not have to support any of this batch at all, unless he wishes to (and he'll have his own children and grandchildren to think about).

If Andrew had invested wisely, he could do just fine on his own (supporting his kids included - but as to grandkids - I doubt he could maintain the current lifestyle Sarah and the girls have - no more posh summer vacations upon request, perhaps).

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Sometimes I wonder if ILuvBertie tires of repeating important facts over and over. Such a generous contributor. Please read those posts, folks.

 

[Zonk]

I've brought this over from the Career Options for Princess Beatrice and I didnt' want that thread to get bogged down by this question/statement:

Yes, her relatively low place. The odds of Beatrice becoming queen are extraordinarily low and she'll continue to drop ever further down the list as the years go on.
And just because she's legally HRH Princess Beatrice doesn't mean she needs to use the title. I believe Prince Edward's children are legally TRH Prince James and Princess Louise of Wessex but they're not routinely styled as such. Beatrice certainly has the option of not using her title in her day to day working life. Yes, she'll face lots of criticism if she finds paying work but, surprise, surprise, she'll face at least as much criticism if she doesn't.
To be clear though I think a regular, long term, paying job is likely not what these women are going to wind up doing over the next few years. But I disagree with those who think it wouldn't be an option.

Sorry, but I also disagree with the comment regarding Beatrice's lowly place in succession. She is 5th not 35th. Not counting her uncle and her father who in their 50's and 60's as they are going to (sorry to be matter of fact about it) age and eventually pass on (as we all are). Yes her grandparents, and her great grandmother lived to nice long active lifes. That is not the issue. The issues are William and Harry. It would be different if they were just men in their late 20's/early 30's...doing regular jobs. But they don't do regular jobs.

William flies helicopters in potentially dangerous situations and Harry is an Army officer who wants to fight. He is not fighting Joe down the street. He is fighting in dangerous war torn areas. So at least until William has a child......Beatrice has a unique and certainly important position as #5. God forbid if something happens to either William and/or Harry. Especially if William does not have a child. Though to be honest, if something happens to either one...I can see the other one not flying helicopters or serving on the front lines. But if that is not the case, before you know it.....you have King Charles III and King Andrew (or another name) and than what....Queen Beatrice.

Not to discount the fact that at some point when her grandparents die and her uncle becomes King, she very well can become a Counsellor of State...positions also held at one point by a lot of royals with low places on the successions.

And we don't need to comment on Sarah.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Yes, her relatively low place. The odds of Beatrice becoming queen are extraordinarily low and she'll continue to drop ever further down the list as the years go on.
And just because she's legally HRH Princess Beatrice doesn't mean she needs to use the title. I believe Prince Edward's children are legally TRH Prince James and Princess Louise of Wessex but they're not routinely styled as such. Beatrice certainly has the option of not using her title in her day to day working life. Yes, she'll face lots of criticism if she finds paying work but, surprise, surprise, she'll face at least as much criticism if she doesn't.
To be clear though I think a regular, long term, paying job is likely not what these women are going to wind up doing over the next few years. But I disagree with those who think it wouldn't be an option.

I'll repeat again 5th is not a low place in the line of succesion, William and Harry killed 'on the job' and Charles and Andrew pass away naturally, again Queen Beatrice. She'll continue to drop, if the succession line expands, not if it stays as it is. The future is very unpredictable.


They are, but when their parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) Louise and James would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses. Beatrice has carried the HRH for 23 years, don't think she's about to drop it now to go and do some normal work.

Actually, I know Charles has been wanting to down size the royal family, but I don't think that's going to happen for a good 10 or so years, because he needs Beatrice and Eugenie when his cousins unfortunately pass away. Unless he's just going forgo the royal duties they partake in. I'm talking about the Gloucesters and the Kents. Hopefully William and Catherine will have children and Harry will marry and have children, but their children won't be able to carry out royal duties until they are at least 18 or older. So Beatrice and Eugenie should be put to work in 'the firm', and then when they are older they should work for non profit charity organisations an the like.

 

[Diarist]

........
This is a consequence of the bad years of the early 90s when the concept of a 'royal family' was destroyed in many minds and the public became much more critical of the family and way more conscious of the costs of the royal family and actually question a need for anyone other than the monarch, heir and possibly the heir's heir and their respective spouses......

I can remember very clearly that when this change was announced, many people thought that it was actually 'unfair' to the so-called 'minor royals'.and that they were being 'penalised' because of the foolish acts of the younger royals. Pressure for change, in my very humble opinion, had come about because of the antics of Sarah and even Diana. I don't need to repeat Sarah's various perceived wrong-doings here, but there was also a general feeling that Diana had sometimes behaved badly, although to be fair, there was also some sympathy towards her because of the 'Camilla' situation.

At that time, the view generally was that the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alice, The Duke and Duchess of Kent [the latter still very much a dutiful 'working royal' in those days] and Princess Alexandra, were all hard-working and represented 'good value' as they were not the most expensive of Royals. Over the years, their civil list payments had been less than those received by - or the amount of money from the Duchy of Cornwall - the Yorks and the Waleses. In other words, the minor royals were not perceived to be part of the problem; in fact they were dutiful, hard-working and uncontroversial, huge assets to the BRF but it was these minor royals who it was proposed would lose their roles.

I can remember that many people pointed out that the 'minor royals' had dutifully carried out a lot of 'bread and button' royal work - opening day care centres in less glamorous parts of the kingdom, attending at events of not-very glamorous or even well-known charities, attending minor events in support of less-well known Service Charities etc.

Princess Alexandra in particular was singled out for double-praise, because it was her practice to be accompanied as often as possible by Sir Angus Ogilivy: 'two for the price of one' in other words, as he of course was not funded by the Civil List payment, which was expressed as being paid to Princess Alexandra only.

In my very humble opinion, there will always be a demand for a 'Royal' to come to an event. If the Royal Family is streamlined, then I would speculate that 'important events' and 'major charities' will almost always be graced by a Royal presence, but that these 'ordinary' organisations and events will not be so-favoured. Yet it is these 'ordinary organisations' and 'bread-and-butter' events that are SO important in that they represent one of the few chances for 'ordinary' people to see - and even meet - members of the BRF. This, in my humble opinion, is because 'important events' and 'major charities' always have a large presence of 'important' people involved. Look at some of these recent London charity events and you will see what I mean. The 'rich and the famous' are there in droves, all rubbing shoulders with Prince Harry and even Kate and William. if one looks at ARK charity Gala back in June this year, hosted by Arpad ['Arkie'] Busson, at which the fabulously wealthy attended. HUGE sums of money were raised. The event was graced with the presence of William and Catherine; major royals in other words. If you cut down the BRF too much, it means that there won't be sufficient royals to grace 'ordinary' events: i.e. the opening of small sportshalls, recreational facilities for the elderly in a small town etc. Surely it could not be right that only the 'rich and famous' who can afford to pay out huge sums of money at these charity galas become the only people who can be present at Royal Visits?

The Queen of course decides who and who is not in the Royal family, and I would speculate that - even in the rest of the Queen's reign - the Kents and the Gloucesters are going to start reducing their working roles: the Queen could live perhaps at least another 15 years, during which time the Kents and the Gloucesters will probably want to reduce the frequency and/or duration of their engagements.

Although the view is that, on the basis of past annoucements, Beatrice and Eugenie won't be required for Royal duties, the way that BP has worded the recent announcement regarding the future career of Beatrice just makes me feel that perhaps she will at some stage in the future start to undertake a few duties, even only on a temporary stop-gap basis. This is because I just cannot see BP in practice being able to turn down requests for a Royal presence. Whilst there has indeed been severe disenchantment with the BRF in recent years, I just get the gut feeling that as the Queen ages, the popularity of the monarchy might actually even increase over the remaining years of the Queen's reign. And thus the need for 'working royals' won't necessarily fade away.

Just my thoughts
Alex

 

[King of the Jungle]

It would be fabulous for Princess Beatrice to undertake some royal engagements. The Queen's cousins, Prince Philip and the Queen herself are all getting older and it would be nice for some of the public requests for a royal presence to be met by a youthful Beatrice.
The experience would be invaluable for Beatrice.
To be fair, for her own development, it would be beneficial for Beatrice to also work in another field. It would give her confidence in her own abilities to contribute if she were to succeed in an area not associated with her royal standing.
Are the armed services open to her type of qualifications?

 

[MARG]

I keep reading that Prince Charles has decided to downsize the working British Royal Family. Can anyone give a reference to any official statement or Press Release from Buckingham Palace or Clarence House that actually categorically states this actually is going to happen?

Things have gotten so weird that it is almost like a self-fulfilling prophesy, as so much of this type of discussion has led to the York girls losing their protection, wild talk about how unsuitable they are (what with their mother and all) to move in the sphere to which they have been born and raised and actually do live in.

Worse that they can not be allowed to inhabit the same "space" as the Duchess of Cambridge, yes Duchess not Princess, unlike Beatrice and Eugenie who are princesses by blood and the very notion of having their HRH status yanked would be both unprecedented and a stain on the current head of the BRF.

Yes indeed, things have gotten crazy. Downsizing will preclude Princesses Beatrice or Eugenie from any "Official" role in the BRF and so they will have to get real jobs. Of course, any job they got would be a poisoned chalice as there would be accusations of unfair use of their "status" to get said job.

Does any of this sound nuts. If so, you are right. It is.

IMHO both the Queen and Prince Charles are more than aware that they have an "ageing" working royal family and, with the best will in the world, the older ones are either slowing down or being told they must slow down. But after them there is almost a generation gap before we get the heir's heir and spare who, inconveniently have jobs, and to be honest, it it in the best interest of the BRF that they be allowed to continue in said jobs as long as possible.

William needs the chance to establish a family and hopefully, Harry will meet some lovely woman to whom he would actually want to embrace the bonds of matrimony. Until then he is just as his Uncle Andy was. In the Military and enjoying every minute.

Meanwhile, back on the front line, the Queen's generation are retiring and someone has to fill the blanks. Peter? No, he has eschewed rank and title and has a job of his own. Zara? The same. Barring the York Girls, there are only the Wessex children and they have to actually grow up before anyone makes any decisions about their futures.

But I digress. From oblique statements made following Princess Beatrice's graduation, it seems her future may not be as cut and dried as we have been led to believe.

The question is, who led us to believe it? HM, Prince Charles, or was it merely repeated pontifications from various journalists?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This is a consequence of the bad years of the early 90s when the concept of a 'royal family' was destroyed in many minds and the public became much more critical of the family and way more conscious of the costs of the royal family and actually question a need for anyone other than the monarch, heir and possibly the heir's heir and their respective spouses. When the 4th in line is described as minor royal you can see that the ideas have changed. Before the 1990s the cousins were the minor royals now it is the younger children of the monarch. In 15 or so years Harry will be relegated to minor royal status.

Exactly and I think its a good and very common sense thing.

To give the HRH to Bea & Eugenie was wrong in the first place and only down to the attitude (status, importance) of their parents (in contrast to Anne & Edward).

Best thing they can do is have their own jobs and own life and establish some independence from their parents attitude and royal status thinking. They are completely unimportant to the institution and its survival.

 

[Zonk]

Exactly and I think its a good and very common sense thing.

To give the HRH to Bea & Eugenie was wrong in the first place and only down to the attitude (status, importance) of their parents (in contrast to Anne & Edward).

Best thing they can do is have their own jobs and own life and establish some independence from their parents attitude and royal status thinking. They are completely unimportant to the institution and its survival.

Its might be hard for some to believe, but the Yorks weren't always held in such disdain by the public. The wedding of Andrew and Sarah as well as the births of Beatrice and Eugenie were considered joyous occasions.

As such Beatrice and Eugenie weren't given a HRH status because of the attitude (status and importance) of their parents. They were given that as a result of their birthright (he LP's of 1917). The same way that Princess Alexandra of Kent is an HRH because of her father. So it wasn't because Andrew and Sarah thought their daughters should be HRH's its because their daughters are HRH's. And frankly, if I was Andrew I would be a bit miffed if there was any discussion of them losing their HRH's as well. Its not like they are going to carry them into the next generation, they were born them and they are entitled to them as granddaughters of the sovereign by male issue. Its completely different if they were born to Anne or if Elizabeth did a Edward VII and made his granddaughters by his daughters HH's.

If Anne had married a man with a title than her kids would have had titles to ...of course, not HRH's unless she married someone royal. Or the Queen could have made Mark an Earl but the offer was declined by both parents. But she choose for her kids not to have titles...they weren't due them to their birthright.

And are we really going to compare the circumstances and births of Beatrice and Eugenie born in 1988/1991 with Louise and James were born a good ten to fifteen years later? And for the record, James and Louise are HRH's as well. At this point in this life, their parents have chosen not to use that. Who knows what the situation will be when they grow up.

 

[Kataryn]

Best thing they can do is have their own jobs and own life and establish some independence from their parents attitude and royal status thinking. They are completely unimportant to the institution and its survival.

I don't think it is BP or even the princesses themselves who can determine how important they are for the institution, so much less people like you and me. It's IMHO a question if there is an organization or charity who wants them. If there is a hospital eg which wants to name a new wing after one of the princesses (like it recently happened with the Princess Eugenie-wing of a hospital) or a town wants one of them to open the new school, then there will be a request going to either their father's or their grandmother's office and it will be dealt with. I personally doubt they would turn down that request.

They are still very young, in a way still "in the Royal schoolroom" and not yet really "out" in the kind of society which could demand their Royal presence but they are TRH and they will be that for all of their lives. Maybe they will prefer to be hands-on with only a few charities, maybe they'll decide on a different approach but it is not yet the time for them to actually decide. So let's just simply see what's going to come their way and how they are going to deal with that (and their mother's potential wishes).But I don't think there won't be demand for them as "Royals" once it has been established that they are available for requests.

The Palace did it for Catherine on saying that while she has a low profile at the moment, she checks out her opportunities for charitable interests, so IMHO they encouraged charities and institutions to request her presence and support. I wouldn't wonder if some of these requests would be suitable for the York princesses as well, so that there even might be a pool of opportunities for all younger members of the RF.

And once it has been declared that they are available, I think a lot of opportunities will come their way because I believe for a lot of people and organizations all members of the Royal family are importand, not least two good-looking, kind and smiling princesses.

 

[Zonk]

I want to make sure I understand.

Are you saying that organizations won't seek royal patronage if they find out that their potential royal patrons are Beatrice and/or Eugenie? Is that correct and that's on the basis that they are Beatrice and Eugenie, daughters of Andrew and Sarah or Beatrice and Eugenie, HRH Princesses of York and members of the British Royal Family.

Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[Kataryn]

I want to make sure I understand.

Are you saying that organizations won't seek royal patronage if they find out that their potential royal patrons are Beatrice and/or Eugenie? Is that correct and that's on the basis that they are Beatrice and Eugenie, daughters of Andrew and Sarah or Beatrice and Eugenie, HRH Princesses of York and members of the British Royal Family.

Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question, ZONK.

I did not make any predictions about organizations seeking Royal patronage by Eugenie and Beatrice or not. I tried to say that it's up to organizations to seek their patronage or Royal patronage in general and accept one of the York princesses. It's a positive approach by someone and if it happens and the princesses gracefully accept, then they will be doing Royal duties. But if nobody approaches them then they won't be doing Royal duties.

It has been mused here so often that the Palace or Charles or whoever can decide if they are doing Royal duties or not, but I personally believe it is up to the people (represented by organizations and the like) to want them to do that and than they'll be doing at least some Royal duties (depending on their priorities in life) because I don't see anybody in Royal circles telling interested parties that they can't have them and telling the princesses they are not allowed to do it if they are in demand. Except the princesses don't want to do it, of course.

Is that clearer now?

 

[Sherlock221B]

I can envision Princess Beatrice making a living within society using the skills she has developed at university...in the manner that her aunt the Princess Royal used her equestrian skills early in her adult life...although I don't envision her pursuit lasting for too long, for I believe she…as with almost every senior member (yes 5th in line puts one way up there)…will be accused of ignoring her royal duties. Quite simply that has been her future role ever since she has been a princess…when did that happen again…

 

[Sherlock221B]

Seriously...what harm would HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York, House of Windsor, fifth, and the first female, in the line of succession to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth Realms, granddaughter of the monarch, daughter of a monarch's son, niece to the heir, first cousin of the heir's heir, 2:1 History and History of Ideas University of London graduate, would bestow the world if she decides to pursue official royal duties instead of making a living within society?

 

[Mermaid1962]

Beatrice and Eugenie weren't "given" an HRH. They are the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, and so it was their birthright. Princess Anne couldn't pass the HRH on to her children because titles don't pass through females in the UK. Sophie and Edward in consultation with the Queen must have made a joint decision not to use the HRH for practical reasons.

To give the HRH to Bea & Eugenie was wrong in the first place and only down to the attitude (status, importance) of their parents (in contrast to Anne & Edward).

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I agree. I certainly wouldn't mind either of them dropping in if I were involved in a cause in the UK.

It has to be made clear as well that these appearances will not include their mother. This isn't Sarah-bashing. I don't think anyone would deny that she tends to hog the attention when she's around for photographs.

And once it has been declared that they are available, I think a lot of opportunities will come their way because I believe for a lot of people and organizations all members of the Royal family are importand, not least two good-looking, kind and smiling princesses.

 

[jdcharlie]

It has been mused here so often that the Palace or Charles or whoever can decide if they are doing Royal duties or not, but I personally believe it is up to the people (represented by organizations and the like) to want them to do that and than they'll be doing at least some Royal duties (depending on their priorities in life) because I don't see anybody in Royal circles telling interested parties that they can't have them and telling the princesses they are not allowed to do it if they are in demand. Except the princesses don't want to do it, of course.

Is that clearer now?

I think Prince Charles and Prince William should have some say in whether or not Beatrice and Eugenie undertake royal duties full time in the future as they will be providing for them for the rest of their lives (to the extent their husbands do not). If the girls choose to undertake royal duties without any money from the Civil List and charities want them, then I assume there would be no issue. But by the time William is King he will be supporting the duties of his children and grandchildren and likely Harry's entire family.

This is partly why I think it would be wise for Beatrice and Eugenie to find full time positions - potentially paid positions with charitable organizations - and perhaps engage in some charity work on the side. They seem somewhat important now, but they need to take the long view. Choosing the royal route is a life-long commitment that inevitably involves other parties.

 

[Lady Ann]

Exactly..

Seriously...what harm would HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York, House of Windsor, fifth, and the first female, in the line of succession to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth Realms, granddaughter of the monarch, daughter of a monarch's son, niece to the heir, first cousin of the heir's heir, 2:1 History and History of Ideas University of London graduate, would bestow the world if she decides to pursue official royal duties instead of making a living within society?

 

[Meadow]

It isn't up to Beatrice it is up to Charles and William who would both have to financially support her. Charles wants to cutdown on that sort of spending. What is wrong with Beatrice getting a job? So far she hasn't done that much charity work which she could do if she really wanted too. I've seen her with her mother and that is about all. Does she volunteer anywhere? Does she go visit places and give support that no one knows about? I haven't seen the passion for charity work is she actually doing some already off her own bat? (I don't count her mother dragging her around clearly Sarah uses her for promotion) She shouldn't be waiting for someone to pay her to do this. If she really is passionate then she should be out and about doing it then maybe Charles will see she is hardworking and has a heart for it. Harry started his own charity a few years ago and has worked really hard, William is involved in several and works hard for them (both while serving in the military). What charities is Beatrice linked too and does she actually do work for them? If she does it is a great secret. I know she has had school but she also has a lot of holidays plenty of time to do charity work if she really wanted too. So I'm just wondering has she already got a track record with it. I think she would be better off getting a real job and experience life if she wants to really do charity work nothing would stop her. Plenty of people who work do! I can find plenty of pictures of her on vacation, at events, partying but not so many of her doing any charity work.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It isn't up to Beatrice it is up to Charles and William who would both have to financially support her. Charles wants to cutdown on that sort of spending. What is wrong with Beatrice getting a job? So far she hasn't done that much charity work which she could do if she really wanted too. I've seen her with her mother and that is about all. Does she volunteer anywhere? Does she go visit places and give support that no one knows about? I haven't seen the passion for charity work is she actually doing some already off her own bat? (I don't count her mother dragging her around clearly Sarah uses her for promotion) She shouldn't be waiting for someone to pay her to do this. If she really is passionate then she should be out and about doing it then maybe Charles will see she is hardworking and has a heart for it. Harry started his own charity a few years ago and has worked really hard, William is involved in several and works hard for them (both while serving in the military). What charities is Beatrice linked too and does she actually do work for them? If she does it is a great secret. I know she has had school but she also has a lot of holidays plenty of time to do charity work if she really wanted too. So I'm just wondering has she already got a track record with it. I think she would be better off getting a real job and experience life if she wants to really do charity work nothing would stop her. Plenty of people who work do! I can find plenty of pictures of her on vacation, at events, partying but not so many of her doing any charity work.

She has been associated with Children in Crisis (yes her mother set it up but she has done stuff for it herself) and UNICEF - these were the two charities that beneifitted from her hat.

She has also done the London Marathon for charity.

To compare her to William and Harry is also unfair as they inherited millions of pounds from their mother to spend on setting up charities etc which Beatrice simply doesn't have.

William, when he left uni, hadn't done any charity work. A far better comparison is to look at what William had done at age 23 than what he has done since (or Harry at 23 with Beatrice at 23).

Diana took the boys to charities as part of her look at me strategy but we haven't had the same things with Sarah - sure she took the girls to Turkey but she didn't drag them to charity type things when they were little as a chance to boost herself (yes she is doing it now but not when they were children like Diana did). As a result we don't know if Sarah involved the girls with charity work as they grew up - but as she set up her own charity and has been heavily involved in another one it is reasonable to assume that the girls have a solid understanding of those two charities at least.

We do know that Beatrice has done things for and with charities while at university so it is safe to assume that she might be interested in building on these connections but she can't do the full time type stuff with them as she also needs to get a job of some description to support herself as the indications are that Charles and William don't intend on supporting the York girls.

 

[MARG]

It isn't up to Beatrice it is up to Charles and William who would both have to financially support her. Charles wants to cut down on that sort of spending.

We do know that Beatrice has done things for and with charities while at university so it is safe to assume that she might be interested in building on these connections but she can't do the full time type stuff with them as she also needs to get a job of some description to support herself as the indications are that Charles and William don't intend on supporting the York girls.

OK, I'll put that question out there again: "Can someone, anyone, provide a credible statement, from Prince Charles, Clarence House or Buckingham Palace, that when he become King, Charles wants or indeed intends, to ditch the York girls as part of a projected BRF Slim down Plan?"

I ask this in part because it seems to me that when he is King, the BRF will be an awful lot slimmer by virtue of natural attrition and, his heir and spare both wish to continue in the Military. William for as long as possible and Harry for a career. Which leaves only Catherine, Beatrice and Eugenie available as the young faces of the BRF in charity support.