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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The sibling dynamic between Andrew and Charles must be very interesting if he doesn't want him and his family being working royals. Maybe the queen doesn't mind Beatrice doing that, but, when she passes Charles may not be fond of having Beatrice being a full time working royal....a lot of arguments you have is that she is a blood royal...but Charles may not care that she is...If Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy when he is king...he probably will make that happen.
 
The sibling dynamic between Andrew and Charles must be very interesting if he doesn't want him and his family being working royals. Maybe the queen doesn't mind Beatrice doing that, but, when she passes Charles may not be fond of having Beatrice being a full time working royal....a lot of arguments you have is that she is a blood royal...but Charles may not care that she is...If Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy when he is king...he probably will make that happen.

This is true. After all, it has been dully noted that Andrew is the Queen's favorite child to spend time with. But what's also true is that by the time Charles succeeds to the throne, Beatrice will have already made a name for herself as a royal. He may not have much of a choice but to keep her around.
 
This is true. After all, it has been dully noted that Andrew is the Queen's favorite child to spend time with. But what's also true is that by the time Charles succeeds to the throne, Beatrice will have already made a name for herself as a royal. He may not have much of a choice but to keep her around.


Agreed; Charles won't want to give the media the opportunity to paint him as a villain who is shutting out his nieces.
That's why I said the Yorks intend to present him with a fait accompli as Beatrice lines up more and more patronages and attends more and more events.
 
:previous: And once again your conclusions are predicated on the nameless, unsupported and totally unproven wittering of nobody knows who. And, of course, the alleged skulduggery and machinations of Charles the Mean and Nasty.

A few actual facts would be nice.
 
At the end of the day, Beatrice is a blood princess (one of the few), high up in the line of succession, the first female in the line of succession and has a high profile. Even Charles can't deny that.

Beatrice will continue to add patronages to her roster and be more prominent in the royal ranks. It's her birth right. It's just happening at a slower pace because she is still quite young. After all, the Duchess of Cambridge doesn't so much herself. Full-time royal? What does that even mean now for a modern day princess? I suspect Beatrice will be the one to tell us and pave the way for future princesses in her position. She will no doubt fill a role suitable for her position.

And let's be real, she is the granddaughter of the Queen. She was born royal, will always be royal and that's just the reality.

I agree. Isn't it also highly likely that she will be a counsellor of state for at least some period of time? If the Queen passes before George is 21, then Beatrice will serve until he is 21. The Queen is 87, George is 3 months old. It is also possible that Charles could die before a second child of William's (or Harry's) is 21. If that occurs, she would actually be the 3rd in line over the age of 21 for some period of time. I don't think that makes her a "minor royal". Like many before her, she probably will lose her precedence over time. That has not happened yet and right now she is still pretty important to the BRF.
 
I agree. Isn't it also highly likely that she will be a counsellor of state for at least some period of time? If the Queen passes before George is 21, then Beatrice will serve until he is 21. The Queen is 87, George is 3 months old. It is also possible that Charles could die before a second child of William's (or Harry's) is 21. If that occurs, she would actually be the 3rd in line over the age of 21 for some period of time. I don't think that makes her a "minor royal". Like many before her, she probably will lose her precedence over time. That has not happened yet and right now she is still pretty important to the BRF.

I just don't see evidence that she is being made a full time working royal with the thought that someone else will or will not die any time soon. I think (god forbid) deaths and ascensions will force clarification of the issue. I just have always thought that the family learned a long time ago that the public will only put up with working royals being supported financially by the queen. And the public will still watch every penny and grouse about every expenditure.

For the BRF, right-sizing is the order of our times.
 
Every other monarchy copes fine with just the monarch and his or her eldest child and their family being involved.Throw in any work the monarch's younger children may do and that is more than enough.The British royals don't need to be bringing cousins into it and IMO they won't when Charles is King.
 
:previous: And once again your conclusions are predicated on the nameless, unsupported and totally unproven wittering of nobody knows who. And, of course, the alleged skulduggery and machinations of Charles the Mean and Nasty.

A few actual facts would be nice.


If you mean me, I don't believe Charles is mean and nasty at all, I have a lot of respect for him.
However, I feel he is very aware of his PR (it would be foolish of him not to be in his position).

IF, as has been alleged, he does want to streamline the monarchy, then I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Beatrice is trying an end run around that before the Queen dies and Charles takes over.

If at that time Beatrice has hundreds of patronages and can present herself as hard-working, I don't believe Charles will show her the door. JMO.
 
Every other monarchy copes fine with just the monarch and his or her eldest child and their family being involved.Throw in any work the monarch's younger children may do and that is more than enough.The British royals don't need to be bringing cousins into it and IMO they won't when Charles is King.


The other monarchs are only monarchs in one country while the British monarch is monarch of 16 different countries and Head of a Commonwealth of 54 nations - or 25% of the world's nations. They therefore have calls on their time that the others don't have and thus do need a larger set of working royals.

Personally I don't think they want or need Beatrice simply because Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne will keep working for The Firm until well into their 70s or even 80s - meaning into the 2030s by which time George will be finished with full-time education and be able to take up full-time duties (he won't be able to take his 20s off to do military training as his father did in all probability). Harry won't have the 20 year military career that Andrew had either as he will be needed sooner rather than later but with those people having to take up the slack and doing 500 engagements a year each they can manage the 3000 or so a year done by the 15 working royals now with 6 royals. It averages out to less than 2 a day (and many days they do 5 - 6).
 
Last edited:
The other monarchs are only monarchs in one country while the British monarch is monarch of 16 different countries and Head of a Commonwealth of 54 nations - or 25% of the world's nations. They therefore have calls on their time that the others don't have and thus do need a larger set of working royals.

Personally I don't think they want or need Beatrice simply because Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne will keep working for The Firm until well into their 70s or even 80s - meaning into the 2030s by which time George will be finished with full-time education and be able to take up full-time duties (he won't be able to take his 20s off to do military training as his father did in all probability). Harry won't have the 20 year military career that Andrew had either as he will be needed sooner rather than later but with those people having to take up the slack and doing 500 engagements a year each they can manage the 3000 or so a year done by the 15 working royals now with 6 royals. It averages out to less than 2 a day (and many days they do 5 - 6).

BRF,like any other organisation, needs a Plan B, literally in this case.

We all assume that Harry will happily give up his military career, that his future wife will happily take on royal duties and it will all go smoothly. but it may not happen. I agree with Iluvbertie about the scale of responsibilties, plus a population in the Uk alone of c.70m who expect to see the royals out and about.

So if there was no Harry f/t or a wife f/t, then perhaps Beatrice would be needed. It wouldnt be acknowledged now but she could be available if required.
 
The "other" countries that have streamlined monarchies are much smaller "geographically" speaking ... can't compare to the United Kingdom. I think Beatrice and Eugenie will be needed more often than not. Don't count them out (or hate them because you hate their mother).l

I point out "geography" because those other countries don't have a large an area to cover nor as many organizations which expect to have a royal patronage and/or occasional visit. You really can't compare a Benelux country (not that there is anything wrong with them) with the UK.

Stay tuned ...
 
When you really think about it, when in the world would Charles and Andrew really ever have the time to engage in a rip roaring family feud? Both of these men are right at the top of the list doing royal duties and engagements, Charles has his wife he probably loves to spend time with and his own children and grandchildren to worry about. Andrew may not have a wife at this time, but he does have a solid family unit he loves to spend time with.

I think perhaps someone at the Daily Mail or some other rag had spent time reading up on the Hatfields and McCoys and thought it'd be cool to spice up the British Royal Family with their own version. I'm sure as brothers, there's been times they're not happy with each other over antics, mistakes or choices but the fact remains that they are brothers.
 
Again, I just point to the question: what is a full-time royal? I doubt the royal family sees their role as full time or part time regardless of if they fulfill engagements on behalf of the Queen. Some take careers as representatives of the Queen while others choose different career paths. That doesn't make Beatrice any less royal than Harry. And that doesn't make her any less important in the royal fold either. Again, this whole full time royal thing is something made up by the public in relation to the royals job in regards to their government primarily. I'm sure the royal family puts much more focus on their role in the House of Windsor rather than their role in government. Regardless, Beatrice will make an impact for her country, be noticed and help many people. And she is royal--all through and through.
 
And just to point out--as her role as head of the House of Windsor, the Queen has taken great strides to make sure everyone is clear on TRH Princess Beatrice's and Eugenie's role in the royal family and how important they are. She put out new rules saying that the Duchess of Cambridge must curtsy to them when William is not around. And although I'm sure we all know that the younger generation rarely curtsies to each other, that's a strong message to make especially during a time when rumors are amuck that the Prince of Wales wants to cut the girls out.

And during strictly family royal business (that has nothing to do with government) like the family's walk to church at Sandringham, etc. it's always usually Princess Beatrice or Eugenie walking in lock-step with HM the Queen acting as ladies-in-waiting.
 
And just to point out--as her role as head of the House of Windsor, the Queen has taken great strides to make sure everyone is clear on TRH Princess Beatrice's and Eugenie's role in the royal family and how important they are. She put out new rules saying that the Duchess of Cambridge must curtsy to them when William is not around. And although I'm sure we all know that the younger generation rarely curtsies to each other, that's a strong message to make especially during a time when rumors are amuck that the Prince of Wales wants to cut the girls out.

And during strictly family royal business (that has nothing to do with government) like the family's walk to church at Sandringham, etc. it's always usually Princess Beatrice or Eugenie walking in lock-step with HM the Queen acting as ladies-in-waiting.

The Duchess of Cambridge does not curtsey to Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie. Only to The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh. The young royals don't curtsey to each other.
 
The Duchess of Cambridge does not curtsey to Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie. Only to The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh. The young royals don't curtsey to each other.

Regardless, the rules are there. They choose not to curtsy to each other, but the rule is that she should curtsy to the blood princesses.
 
Regardless, the rules are there. They choose not to curtsy to each other, but the rule is that she should curtsy to the blood princesses.

We don't know if that thing that people call "private Order of Precedence" is true.

The real order of precedence is that:

1. The Queen.
2. The Duchess of Cornwall.
3. The Countess of Wessex.
4. The Princess Royal.
5. The Duchess of Cambridge.
6. Princess Beatrice of York.
7. Princess Eugenie of York.
8. The Duchess of Gloucester.
9. The Duchess of Kent.
10. Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

Well, The Duchess of Cambridge has more precedence than Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York, so, she doesn't need to curtsey to them.

I not sure if she has to curtsey to The Countess of Wessex and The Princess Royal. But I'm pretty sure she has to curtsey to The Queen and The Duchess of Cornwall.
 
Last edited:
The Duchess of Cambridge does not curtsey to The Duchess of Cornwall and The Princess Royal. Curtsies only go out to The Queen and sometimes to The Duke of Edinburgh.

I think it's great that Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie have their patronages that they support but I think a slimmer royal family is just the smart way to go.
 
Last edited:
We don't know if that thing that people call "private Order of Precedence" is true. The real order of precedence is that: 1. The Queen. 2. The Duchess of Cornwall. 3. The Countess of Wessex. 4. The Princess Royal. 5. The Duchess of Cambridge. 6. Princess Beatrice of York. 7. Princess Eugenie of York. 8. The Duchess of Gloucester. 9. The Duchess of Kent. 10. Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy. Well, The Duchess of Cambridge has more precedence than Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York, so, she doesn't need to curtsy to them. I not sure if she has to curtsy to The Countess of Wessex and The Princess Royal. But I'm pretty sure she has to curtsy to The Queen and The Duchess of Cornwall.

We do know that the Duchess of Cambridge as well as the Countess of Wessex only take that order when their husbands are present--they take their title and precedence.

However, when their husbands are not present, they drop down quite a bit because they are not royal by blood and not princesses in their own right. When Prince William is not around, Beatrice and Eugenie both outrank Catherine. Always. This is not a matter of private order of precedence--it's just the way things work and the way they always have.
 
The old rules are there but the young royals don't pull rank. They all know their place and know who are the future Queen's.
 
The Duchess of Cambridge does not curtsey to The Duchess of Cornwall and The Princess Royal. Curtsies only go out to The Queen and sometimes to The Duke of Edinburgh.

The question is not whether the Duchess of Cambridge curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall, the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal, but whether or not she should curtsey to those Princesses.
 
We do know that the Duchess of Cambridge as well as the Countess of Wessex only take that order when their husbands are present--they take their title and precedence.

However, when their husbands are not present, they drop down quite a bit because they are not royal by blood and not princesses in their own right. When Prince William is not around, Beatrice and Eugenie both outrank Catherine. Always. This is not a matter of private order of precedence--it's just the way things work and the way they always have.

The source for that information are Daily Mail articles, so I'll not believe it's true.

Camilla: Britain's Fourth Lady... | Mail Online

Will the Duchess of Cambridge curtsey to Princess Beatrice and Eugenie? | Mail Online

Officially, that's the Order of Precedence:

Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Anyone who has studied the monarchy know this to be the case. It's the same reason we will never hear a Princess Catherine. She's not a princess or royal in her own right. Regardless of if it's tradition that is followed strictly today doesn't negate the fact that this is tradition and the way things work.
 
I'm always annoyed by the way the papers try and play this as a female vs. female issue. They never talk about the fact that under the Order of precedence, I believe that Catherine has to curtsey to Harry when William isn't around, or that Sophie has to curtsey to Andrew when Edward isn't present. The story is always "Catherine has to curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie" or "Camilla has to curtsey to Anne."
 
The Order of Precedence is NOT about curtseying anymore - it's about precedence, who goes first in/out of a room etc.
 
I don't think Pss. Beatrice's party is necessarily a debut into society. I think it's more of a coming of age party, which is rather different. Alot of girls here in the US have Sweet 16 parties and it's more of a coming of age party than anything else. The old debutante extravaganzas include all sorts of engagements prior to the actual party; luncheons, teas, soirees, various dances/catillions. I know this up close and personal 'cuz my mother was a deb and trust me, it's not a fun thing (according to her). I don't think the York girls are going through all of that. Wm. and Harry both had coming of age parties, I believe.

I agree I took it more as they are being launched into their roles as royals, a royal duty coming of age. William and Harry are the only other Royal Highnesses by birth in that are on the younger side - they can't do it all ;)
 
It seems a little bit old fashioned for members of a family to be bowing and curtseying to one another. I can undersand the public doing so for the Queen though.
 
Correct me if im wrong but princesses pf the blood have always been held in higher esteem than princesses by marriage
 
Do I have this right, all of Catherine and Williams' children will be HRHs (thanks to the recent change.) None of Beatrice and Eugenie's children will be HRHs under any circumstance (unless their father became king or one of them Queen.) Harry's children will be HRHs if he has them when his father is king, but will not be HRHs if he has them when his grandmother is Queen or his brother is King. Louise and James are HRHs?
Beatrice and Eugenie won't outrank Catherine when she is Queen consort, I assume, but will they still outrank her when she is (presumably) the princess of Whales because they are born royal and she was not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom