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

[muriel]

I get the feeling that neither the British public or the family, except their father, want the girls doing anything official or public - sad but that is the way I see it - not wanted by anyone.

Fully agree with you.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

But that is just my point: it may not be altogether fair, but they need to employ serious PR techniques to turn their images around. William and Harry had the benefit of being Diana's sons, so the public gave their antics more of a pass, but Beatrice and Eugenie do not have that going for them, so (if they truly want serious royal roles), they need to start being "squeaky clean," as that is the only way they might be accepted by the rest of the BRF who understandably do not want the family's image further eroded.

 

[NGalitzine]

Fully agree with you.

Perhaps but I suspect those same members of the British public do not realize that the BRF (Queen, the Dof E, her children and her cousins and now grandchildren) currently undertake in excess of 4000 engagements each year and that in future as senior royals pass from the scene either much fewer engagements will be undertaken or younger members will have to step up. The same members of the public probably do not understand how the BRF is funded probably believeing they all have incomes from the tax payers (which was never true since the civil list was not income) or that in future the BRF will be funded from the Crown Estate and not by the tax payer at all. Never underestimate how papers like the DM and lack of education in the schools have dumbed down the public over the last 50 yrs.

 

[muriel]

But that is just my point: it may not be altogether fair, but they need to employ serious PR techniques to turn their images around. William and Harry had the benefit of being Diana's sons, so the public gave their antics more of a pass, but Beatrice and Eugenie do not have that going for them, so (if they truly want serious royal roles), they need to start being "squeaky clean," as that is the only way they might be accepted by the rest of the BRF who understandably do not want the family's image further eroded.

Why should they bother? They are not particularly close to the throne, and if it has been decided that they will not be working members of the BRF, the PR is really not decided. They can either choose to build independent careers for themselves, or they can make the choice to be at fashion shows, parties and night clubs and then worry why they are not taken seriously; the choice in entirely for Beatrice & Eugenie.

 

[Zonk]

Not particularly close to the throne? They are 5th and 6th.

Charles is in his 60's and Andrew is his 50's and while the Queen Mother, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have lived rather long and blessed lives....numbers 2 and 3 (that would be William and Harry) like to fly helicopters for a living. Not the safest job to do.....yes, you could get hit by a car or develop a terminal illness as well but really. How many freak accident have led to deaths of helicopter pilots. Its a massive machine that even the most skilled pilot in extenuating circumstances (winds, machine failure, etc.) have trouble controlling. And Harry is training to fly Apache helicopters? Do I think that if something tragic happens to one the other will be allowed to continue his chosen profession? No, I don't but that is another discussion for another thread.

Frankly, until William or Harry have a child....I don't think we should be so dismissive of how close they are to the throne. Its not like they are 11 and 12. I think there are a few examples of British history of people who were fairly close to the throne but because those in front of them didn't have children or died early, either they or their children (or their children's children) benefited from "not being that close." Queen Victoria, was the daughter of the 4th son! Electress Sophia and her link.

But back on topic.

I think BP does know what will be done with either Beatrice and/or Eugenie. We just don't know yet.

 

[Russophile]

As well, HM The Queen put roughly 1.2 million pounds into trust for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie when Andrew and Sarah divorced. That was in 1996, imagine how that trust has grown?

At the very least, using the rule of 7, it should be about 4.8 Mil.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

...and that 4+ million won't go far today and even less tomorrow. The young ladies are going to have to "do" something or marry well. However, I wouldn't make a wager that they will never do "Firm" work. I think once the Princess Royal retires, and the older members are gone, they might need them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They have received a lot more stick because they are girls as well - in this day and age we still expect a different standard of behaviour from girls than boys. They are also cursed with having Sarah as their mother while the boys had Diana - so they can do no wrong while the girls can do no right - because of the image of their mothers.

I don't think it is so much who their mother is - afterall the criticisms of Andrew and Edward being spongers can't be put down to who their mother is but... the public don't want to spend any money on the royal family and if they do public duties then some money will have to be spent.

 

[sliver_bic]

They have received a lot more stick because they are girls as well - in this day and age we still expect a different standard of behaviour from girls than boys. They are also cursed with having Sarah as their mother while the boys had Diana - so they can do no wrong while the girls can do no right - because of the image of their mothers.

I don't think it is so much who their mother is - afterall the criticisms of Andrew and Edward being spongers can't be put down to who their mother is but... the public don't want to spend any money on the royal family and if they do public duties then some money will have to be spent.

Yes but once the older royals start to fade out the family will be smaller regardless so it's not like it's going to cost the country as much as before. There'll be less duties and the family will slowly shrink more as the new generation ages. Remember that, until Charles becomes King, none of the cousins can pass their royal titles along on their own and even after, it will only be the Wales boys with the ability and unless William has a ton of kids the days of a large number of royal cousins will be a thing of the past.

The mother thing is important, in my opinion, a massive factor. Diana is nothing short of a saint and her sons have reaped the benefits. In all honesty, William doesn't strike me as anything near as impressive as the press makes him out to be, but the country is so desperate to see Diana's, not Charles' but Diana's, son succeed that they gild him, and by extension, Kate, to no end.

Harry seems more put together to me, despite being the seen as the screw up of the two, but as the second son he will live in his brother's shadow despite anything he accomplishes.

Now look at the York girls, yes they are Princesses and they have made stupid decisions but they've never hurt anyone, unfortunetly without the press halo their cousins had and a sainted mother's legacy to protect them they get much more flack for everything. The land is in dire financial straits and they make sweet targets when the idea that they would continue to enjoy the royal life is floated.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The simple fact is that currently there are 15 royals doing about 4000 engagements a year but the intention is to cut that down to about half that number so fewer engagements and fewer patronages for the charities etc.

I do think it would be totally unfair on the girls to let them have a private career/life now and then turn around in 10 or 15 years and say 'sorry you now have to take up a public role as we need more working members'. If they aren't going to be doing royal duties now then that should be final and the public will simply have to realise that they will have the mayor open the new wing of the hospital rather than HRH Princess Beatrice etc

 

[kakieanne]

Beatrice is her own worst enemy as far as public opinion goes. She has made it very clear that she wants to be a mini-Mummy and that is exactly what she is becoming. Beatrice apparently wants to do charity work...but it's charity work like Mummy does. Attending charity balls, dinners, events with the rich and beautiful people. That's not work IMHO...that's socializing.

It's quite possible that I have missed any news of Beatrice...but I have seen photos of William, Harry and Eugenie visiting ordinary people...hospitals, seniors homes. recreation centers, war monuments, homeless shelters, etc.

Beatrice probably wrote her last exam in May or June...it's now almost the end of October. She appears to still be on holidays and needs to do something. You don't need a formal invitation to walk through the doors of a seniors' home, a hospital, a homeless shelter, a foodbank, etc. You just need a heart.

 

[Lord_Royal]

...and that 4+ million won't go far today and even less tomorrow.

That's not necessarily true. 4+ million pounds could generate quite a healthy income to be split between the two of them. And as it is in a trust, a trust that is very likely never going to come into their hands (ie safeguarded from Sarah) it won't be tampered with and the York girls will live in relative comfort for all their lives.

The "Mother Issue" is huge. Diana's been practically canonised by the UK press, much of that coming down to the fact that she's dead. Had it been Fergie, rather than Diana, who'd been killed in a Paris tunnel you can bet your last nickel that Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would be lauded as "survivors" and gilded to just the same extent that William and Harry have.

The Yorks need a serious PR makeover and it's going to take hard graft in the form of looking unglamorous and putting in work overseas to get there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Beatrice is her own worst enemy as far as public opinion goes. She has made it very clear that she wants to be a mini-Mummy and that is exactly what she is becoming. Beatrice apparently wants to do charity work...but it's charity work like Mummy does. Attending charity balls, dinners, events with the rich and beautiful people. That's not work IMHO...that's socializing.

It's quite possible that I have missed any news of Beatrice...but I have seen photos of William, Harry and Eugenie visiting ordinary people...hospitals, seniors homes. recreation centers, war monuments, homeless shelters, etc.

Beatrice probably wrote her last exam in May or June...it's now almost the end of October. She appears to still be on holidays and needs to do something. You don't need a formal invitation to walk through the doors of a seniors' home, a hospital, a homeless shelter, a foodbank, etc. You just need a heart.

She did run the London Marathon for charity. The socialising side of charity work is very important as that is when the big bucks are raised by the way.

 

[zembla]

I just don't know who makes the decisions for these girls...I mean, when I saw them pop up in their mother's reality show for Oprah, I couldn't believe it! They should be a bit more exclusive about where they lend their image. Yes, it's your mother, but why wasn't anyone stepping in to stop this? Very odd. I'm not going to blame them fully since I know they must have advisors of some kind who are aware of such appearances.

 

[jdcharlie]

The slimming down of the BRF seems like it would entail cutting down on the number of patronages, which of course makes sense given there are fewer people.

However, from recent articles it sounds like Kate and perhaps William and Harry will start undertaking several of their patronages on a project basis, thereby changing the way patronages are chosen and giving more an opportunity.

I know there are Brits on here who feel differently, but it's my general sense that the public doesn't wish to have or pay for a large monarchy and would be willing to accept fewer patronages. That slack could be made up by public officials or celebrities, many of whom have more clout and drawing power than minor royals. And tbh, I would call one of them before a York any day as I wouldn't want the York family associated with my charity.

Maybe that's where the massive PR campaign might help. That PR campaign for the girls should entail disassociating themselves from their parents and getting a bit of a clue... Diana's sons or not, William and Harry have clued in and have developed a knack for endearing themselves to the public.

Time will tell, but I think it's telling that none of the girls 'royal' public outings are being organized or guided by BP, StJP, CH, etc. It's all Sarah and Andrew.

 

[Russophile]

...and that 4+ million won't go far today and even less tomorrow. The young ladies are going to have to "do" something or marry well. However, I wouldn't make a wager that they will never do "Firm" work. I think once the Princess Royal retires, and the older members are gone, they might need them.

That's in pounds. Which is about twice the american dollar which would be about 9,600,000 American. I think I oculd life off that.

 

[zembla]

Beatrice is her own worst enemy as far as public opinion goes. She has made it very clear that she wants to be a mini-Mummy and that is exactly what she is becoming. Beatrice apparently wants to do charity work...but it's charity work like Mummy does. Attending charity balls, dinners, events with the rich and beautiful people. That's not work IMHO...that's socializing.

I agree that it does seem like she is more interested in doing the socialite thing, which is what her mother does even though she can't really afford to.

As for William and Harry--yeah, they made mistakes and Harry is surely not done screwing up, but the PR machine behind them is very powerful, probably thanks to their father's position and their mother's legacy. I know recently Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie were at the BGC Partners charity day event and there wasn't one picture of all of them posed together. I'm sure that wasn't just a coincidence. Whoever is handling him, obviously saw Beatrice and Eugenie as a liability in some way, which is sad.

 

[Gotmilk]

The slimming down of the BRF seems like it would entail cutting down on the number of patronages, which of course makes sense given there are fewer people.

However, from recent articles it sounds like Kate and perhaps William and Harry will start undertaking several of their patronages on a project basis, thereby changing the way patronages are chosen and giving more an opportunity.

I know there are Brits on here who feel differently, but it's my general sense that the public doesn't wish to have or pay for a large monarchy and would be willing to accept fewer patronages. That slack could be made up by public officials or celebrities, many of whom have more clout and drawing power than minor royals. And tbh, I would call one of them before a York any day as I wouldn't want the York family associated with my charity...

I agree completely.

The UK (not to mention world-wide) economy is in turmoil right now. The government has been making cuts left and right when it comes to all public spending that is not absolutely necessary.The monarchy should not be exempt from this.

There are royal duties and roles that are necessary and require public funding. However, creating an unecessary role for Beatrice or Eugenie does not fall into that category.

I understand that Anne, Edward, and Andrew will eventually retire. I am not suggesting that Kate, William, and Harry pick up all the slack, and perform thousands of duties a year. Instead, I feel that the number of royal patronages and duties in general should be reduced to accomadate the smaller number of working royals.

I know that Bea and Eugenie would not be on the Civil List but performing the duty itself does cost the public money because of security and transportation. Becoming a royal patron, while a lovely gesture towards charitable causes, is not completely necessary from a government stand point. Especially considering how many charities nowadays have found success taking on popular celebrities as spokespeople and ambassadors. Given our culture today, that could be more important than support from a minor royal.

I do not mean to come off as harsh towards the girls. I quite like them, and in many ways they have behaved better than there older cousins did at that age. I agree that much of the media's (and daily mail commenter's) vitrol has to do with their parents and a generally sexist attitude. If they are truly passionate about charity I would not be apposed to them acting as an ambassador or spokesperson. They can even use their title if they like (in the end it is theirs to use after all).

But a large monarchy is simply not possible to sustain in this economy --- at least not without substantial cuts taking place somewhere else that many people would consider more crucial.

(All of this is my opinion of course, others can disagree )

 

[NGalitzine]

Well presumably we dont expect the current global economic crisis to go one indefinitely, so long range planning for the monarchy should not be predicated on todays situation.

 

[Zonk]

I agree completely.

The UK (not to mention world-wide) economy is in turmoil right now. The government has been making cuts left and right when it comes to all public spending that is not absolutely necessary.The monarchy should not be exempt from this.

There are royal duties and roles that are necessary and require public funding. However, creating an unecessary role for Beatrice or Eugenie does not fall into that category.

I understand that Anne, Edward, and Andrew will eventually retire. I am not suggesting that Kate, William, and Harry pick up all the slack, and perform thousands of duties a year. Instead, I feel that the number of royal patronages and duties in general should be reduced to accomadate the smaller number of working royals.

I know that Bea and Eugenie would not be on the Civil List but performing the duty itself does cost the public money because of security and transportation. Becoming a royal patron, while a lovely gesture towards charitable causes, is not completely necessary from a government stand point. Especially considering how many charities nowadays have found success taking on popular celebrities as spokespeople and ambassadors. Given our culture today, that could be more important than support from a minor royal.

I do not mean to come off as harsh towards the girls. I quite like them, and in many ways they have behaved better than there older cousins did at that age. I agree that much of the media's (and daily mail commenter's) vitrol has to do with their parents and a generally sexist attitude. If they are truly passionate about charity I would not be apposed to them acting as an ambassador or spokesperson. They can even use their title if they like (in the end it is theirs to use after all).

But a large monarchy is simply not possible to sustain in this economy --- at least not without substantial cuts taking place somewhere else that many people would consider more crucial.

(All of this is my opinion of course, others can disagree )

While I understand and agree (to a point) regarding your concern for costs and perception, I totally disagree with the concept that charities would rather have a celebrity associated with their organization than a minor royal.

Celebrity life (especially in this day and age) is EXTREMELY FICKLE. While some have long shelf life and can draw public interest to a particular cause, there are many that are just a flash in the pan. Vanity Fair magazine has a Hollywood issue each year, and they put on the cover actors and actresses that they consider to be up and coming. For example, in APRIL 1996: “BOYS’ TOWN” Tim Roth, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matthew McConaughey, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Rapaport, Stephen Dorff, Johnathon Schaech, David Arquette, Will Smith, and Skeet Ulrich were on the cover. Exactly....I recognize a couple of their names but some of them....

I don't know about the UK but there have many "stars" that couldn't open a movie this year (Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, etc) and five years ago that would have been unthinkable. Tom Hanks, for example, is extremely supportive of a variety of causes and these organizations definitely benefit from the association. But there are other star's, who to quote Andy Warhol are famous for fifteen minutes and than their time is up. I am sure there are a number of American and British stars who were quite famous and now couldn't get a five liner mention in Hello! magazine. And let's not even talk about reality stars, they don't count at all.

IMO there are plenty of organizations who definitely need and appreciate their royal patronage. I am sure if someone asked any of the number of organizations supported by the Duchess of Gloucester or Princess Alexandra (who also use security for their events) if they would rather have them or the flavor of the moment, they would not hesitate to keep the so called minor royals.

 

[Meadow]

I really think it would help if Beatrice was seen helping a charity she left uni several months ago and has had plenty of time to go and do some charity work. Doing one London marathon and selling a silly hat doesn't show a dedication to charity work Harry started his own charily a couple of years ago and works really hard at it. William has worked for charities for awhile too all while both have fulltime jobs. Beatrice claims she has a passion for it but I'm sorry I don't see a passion for anything but going to parties and socializing like her mother. A passion would be her being involved for a long time in something and doing it whether she get's her picture taken or not. Having you mother make you an ambassader for her charity isn't the same thing. Plenty of people go to school and either work or do charity work Beatrice has shown she has plenty of time to party and have great holidays. Maybe that is why the RF aren't too keen on it she really hasn't shown any great commitment. Princess Anne has worked hard for many years and yes she is a hard act to follow but no one can say she is lazy and doesn't work hard. If BP do know what is going on I would think by now both the girls know what there choices are. Andrew really seems to be pushing for it so they can get the perks etc and I do think Sarah is behind the scenes pushing for it too. Sarah holds a lot of stock in being the mother of two Princess it would look good for her if they were members of the firm. Beatrice has said she wants to be a mini mummy that alone would send out warning bells to most people. I do agree I think people realise if the Monarchy is to be made smaller there will be less Royals to do the engagements so naturally not all patronages will have Royal support. And I agree these days there are celebrities who do the same sort's of things and whose names have as much if not more pulling power with out the downside.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Right. I have no doubt at all that an organization gets a huge boost by having a royal patron. It's important to the volunteers who work with the charity that they get recognized by a royal visit now and then. Plus, even a visit by a "minor" royal gets some advance publicity and coverage in the local paper. It's good that the community knows that these organizations exist.

IMO there are plenty of organizations who definitely need and appreciate their royal patronage. I am sure if someone asked any of the number of organizations supported by the Duchess of Gloucester or Princess Alexandra (who also use security for their events) if they would rather have them or the flavor of the moment, they would not hesitate to keep the so called minor royals.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

There is a long way between a minor royal becoming a patron of a few charities here and there and being an active major royal being funded by the RF (The Queen now, Charles later) and also receiving taxpayer funded security, which seems to be what Andrew is angling for in the case of his daughters.

Once Charles is king, it would be surprising if there is much if any official role for the Yorks.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is a long way between a minor royal becoming a patron of a few charities here and there and being an active major royal being funded by the RF (The Queen now, Charles later) and also receiving taxpayer funded security, which seems to be what Andrew is angling for in the case of his daughters.

Once Charles is king, it would be surprising if there is much if any official role for the Yorks.

The current minor royals - the Gloucesters and Kents are effectively supported by the Queen as they really don't have any other major means of support and have had to pay quite a bit in death duties over the years.

They do get full security when on these duties. They only jobs these royals have is to carry out royal duties.

The issue seems to be whether or not Beatrice and Eugenie will do the work currently carried out by the Gloucesters and Kents. The Duke of Gloucester for instance is associated with over 150 organisations and he is a minor royal. The Duke of Kent is somewhat similar as is Princess Alexandra. Between then about 500 organisations - these are the ones that will be missing out - not a few but quite a lot.

Then you have to ask who will pick up the other 1200 associated directly with Philip and the Queen?

We are now at about 1700 organisations who currently have a royal association that will either lose that association of will have to pass to William, Kate, Harry and Harry's wife if Beatrice and Eugenie aren't to also take over some of that number (which they can't be expected to do if they are working full time or totally retired from public life - as it seems that the British public and more senior royals would like).

 

[Gotmilk]

I didn't mean for my post to suggest that minor royals taking on patronages are not extremely helpful to the charities they are serving. And everyone's posts did help me rethink my position a bit, and learn more about the importance of the duties of the royals who are less well known.

However celebrities doing charity work does not cost the taxpayer money, official royal duties do. This is why I am not opposed to the princesses working for a charity or performing charitable work if they so choose, but it should not be on the public dime.

The issue of celebrity vs. royal was not meant to be the main point of my post though.

I realize I probably sound like one of the people who constantly whines about how the royals are 'parasites' or 'leeches', and I want to stress that that is not how I feel at all. I do however think that this recession is going to be around longer than most people seem to realize, and is not something that can be waited out for a year or two before things go back to normal. The monarchy should reflect this. I have always felt the British monarchy has survived for so long because of its ability to adapt.

Not to mention that even if the economy does miraculously turn around, many people would prefer a more streamlined monarchy in the future anyways.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have no problem with a more streamlined monarchy so long as the public and the organisations that have had royal support realise that that will no longer be possible so the little school in the rural countryside who would have had their library opened by the Duchess of Gloucester now has to settle for the local mayor's junior assistant instead. It is these people who will be missing out on the magic of royalty in their presence.

 

[Royal Newbie]

I have no problem with a more streamlined monarchy so long as the public and the organisations that have had royal support realise that that will no longer be possible so the little school in the rural countryside who would have had their library opened by the Duchess of Gloucester now has to settle for the local mayor's junior assistant instead. It is these people who will be missing out on the magic of royalty in their presence.

And if those organizations find they can survive just fine without royal patronage, and there is less royal presence throughout the country due to downsizing, how long until people feel there is no need for royals at all?

 

[Mermaid1962]

If appearances by members of the Royal Family become less common, the value of them in the public mind could actually increase.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, and these are the organizations that I feel badly about--small organizations who don't have many wealthy benefactors and really need the publicity and pick-me-up of a royal visit.

I have no problem with a more streamlined monarchy so long as the public and the organisations that have had royal support realise that that will no longer be possible so the little school in the rural countryside who would have had their library opened by the Duchess of Gloucester now has to settle for the local mayor's junior assistant instead. It is these people who will be missing out on the magic of royalty in their presence.

 

[Gotmilk]

I have no problem with a more streamlined monarchy so long as the public and the organisations that have had royal support realise that that will no longer be possible so the little school in the rural countryside who would have had their library opened by the Duchess of Gloucester now has to settle for the local mayor's junior assistant instead. It is these people who will be missing out on the magic of royalty in their presence.

I see what your saying. It would be a shame to see all the magic of royalty lost in the name of finance and politics. However, if that library gets shut down due to cuts then nobody is going to care who opened it.

I don't think it would be right to immediately ditch all organizations that benifit from a royal connection with no notice or care. However, there are priorities that need to be taken into account.

I am starting to go off topic though, so I'll end my reply there