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

[rmay286]

I think people are too hard on Andrew. 556 engagements in one year is a lot.

I also remember reading a journalist's description of his day once. She was invited along with him on one of his international trade representative trips, and I remember this journalist saying that during the plane trip, Andrew was reading pages of information on the place he was visiting.

For royals who are not glamorous and don't seem to have much interest in vacations, parties, excitement--like Anne or Camilla--the press only has their public engagements to report on. As a result, it's presumed that they are exceptionally hard working. On the other hand, someone like Andrew, who likes golfing, skiing, is single and has glamorous female companions from time to time, is assumed to be lazy and not pulling his weight. I don't think that's fair. From everything I've read, he clearly works hard. He likes having fun too, but I don't think it's at the expense of his duties.

 

[Bella]

Even though this is a Pss B & E thread, I'll just say Prince Andrew is incredibly hard-working. Golf is the sport of kings . . . well, businessmen, at least. And Prince Andrew is a "businessman" for his country. So what if he plays golf? Does that take away from the countless meetings and corporate affairs, luncheons and trade shows he attends?? I think not.

 

[Skydragon]

Even though this is a Pss B & E thread, I'll just say Prince Andrew is incredibly hard-working. Golf is the sport of kings . . . well, businessmen, at least. And Prince Andrew is a "businessman" for his country. So what if he plays golf? Does that take away from the countless meetings and corporate affairs, luncheons and trade shows he attends?? I think not.

The UK has many worthwhile 'businessmen' who work for the benefit of their country and probably do a better job than Andrew, without all the perks that Andrew expects and gets. Very few of them can pick and choose which events to attend based on golf tournaments or clubs. Golf is certainly not the sport of Kings, that title goes to horse racing, anyone can join a golf club and it is certainly not restricted to business men or women here.

With Andrew as their shining example, I don't think we can expect too much of either of his daughters.

 

[Bella]

Skydragon, do you really believe Prince Andrew only chooses places he visits based on golfing and perks? Come on. The last several events he's attended he was visiting army bases and trade shows with no golf courses in sight. Maybe other businessmen do represent their country better than Andrew - just what you mean I'm not sure - but the fact is, they are not Royalty and Royalty sells your country. That's just the way it is. I think there are enough watchdog agencies in Britain who are keeping close tabs on the royals and what they're doing to earn their keep. I think if Prince Andrew was really seriously abusing his position or violating anything, there would be mass outcry. Look how much brouhaha has been generated over Pss B & E's security costs. I don't live in England and I'm not a British citizen but in my eyes, P. Andrew is doing a good job.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Skydragon, do you really believe Prince Andrew only chooses places he visits based on golfing and perks? Come on. The last several events he's attended he was visiting army bases and trade shows with no golf courses in sight. Maybe other businessmen do represent their country better than Andrew - just what you mean I'm not sure - but the fact is, they are not Royalty and Royalty sells your country. That's just the way it is. I think there are enough watchdog agencies in Britain who are keeping close tabs on the royals and what they're doing to earn their keep. I think if Prince Andrew was really seriously abusing his position or violating anything, there would be mass outcry. Look how much brouhaha has been generated over Pss B & E's security costs. I don't live in England and I'm not a British citizen but in my eyes, P. Andrew is doing a good job.

Then I suggest you move to England cos Andy needs all the support he can get. The man is viewed as a freeloader, a total waste of time and as one member of the family that people just cannot stand. And thats not me generalising - royalists and republicans like usually have two things in common; they'll agree Anne is hard working and a British asset and that Andrew is lazy and an embarrassment.

 

[lyndaW]

Many many business deals are made on a golf course, or over a lovely dinner---and yes----take it from me it is "work", although the settings may not be a Board Room, every thing you do or say is the same as if you were in a stuffy Boardroom. Actualy its rather more difficult to hit the perfect balance

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon, do you really believe Prince Andrew only chooses places he visits based on golfing and perks? Come on. The last several events he's attended he was visiting army bases and trade shows with no golf courses in sight. Maybe other businessmen do represent their country better than Andrew - just what you mean I'm not sure - but the fact is, they are not Royalty and Royalty sells your country. That's just the way it is. I think there are enough watchdog agencies in Britain who are keeping close tabs on the royals and what they're doing to earn their keep. I think if Prince Andrew was really seriously abusing his position or violating anything, there would be mass outcry. Look how much brouhaha has been generated over Pss B & E's security costs. I don't live in England and I'm not a British citizen but in my eyes, P. Andrew is doing a good job.

I can only back up what BeatrixFan has already told you in his post, Andrew is seen as lazy, a waste of space, arrogant and a user, who claims the perks without doing the work. He probably brings less business to this country than the representatives of individual businesses, the difference is that he costs a lot more. He receives money from his mother and a salary for a job he didn't even have to apply for, they invented it for him. He is the Earl of Inverness and has visited err, thats right, I don't think he has ever accepted an invitation, prefering Aberdeen and St Andrews!
As I said, with Andrew as a role model the girls have no chance of knowing what their 'duties' are, they may be young but they are viewed in the same way. Chips off the old block!

 

[Fabulous Fake]

>snip

Andrew does not earn the money he is given and BeatrixFan and I are not alone in thinking he and his daughters are letting the side down!

Count me in too.

Those freeloaders infuriate me.

 

[Bella]

I still believe there's hope for the York girls in terms of becoming assets to the RF. They're still young and young ppl their age go to parties and aren't necessarily thinking of royal duties and public image. I know, they should be 'cuz they're not "average" girls but they're still girls. Like I said before, Princess Anne wasn't really well thought of in her youth and I doubt many ppl felt she'd amount to much outside the horse set, but look at her now. I'm just saying we shouldn't write off Pss B & E just yet. It won't be long before there are no real royal princesses in the BRF to carry on royal duties and I think the York girls know this.

 

[Skydragon]

Given the views of deeply respected Skydgradon and discussion in general, I am very curious to know how the British Monarchy has managed to survive without Duchess of Cornwall for all this time. It seems to me that only Prince Charles, Duchess of Cornwall, and Princess Anne do earn their keep, whereas Prince Andrew and other members are just "freeloaders"(Fabulous Fake, 2008). [FONT=&quot]It is impossible for me to comment on Prince Andrew’s engagements and work efficiency, because I do not know what way [/FONT][FONT=&quot]engagements are assigned to the members of the Royal family and who does it. Considering the above mentioned, I think it would be wrong to regard Prince Andrew as lazy. Prince Andrew can not just create engagements for himself in order to keep the mass media outlets happy. [/FONT]

There have been complaints and articles about Andrew and Edwards lack of engagements, official or private, for very many years. If you do a search you will find complaints that predate his marriage to Sarah and Edward has 'failed' with many of the things he decided to do, rather than try to be a royal. Charles and Anne have also had more than their fair share of detractors, it is only recently that Charles' work seems to be more appreciated than it was. HM helped to hold the RF in high esteem, Diana tried her utmost to damage HM, but she failed. Camilla has given us back our happy prince and is popular amongst the non vocal members of the public.

Andrew, as with all the royals is invited to many events over a year, they can choose which ones they want to attend. I would imagine that if we were to have a list of how many refusals are sent out for no apparent reason, Andrew would top the list.

It really isn't a case of keeping the mass media happy, it is about earning the money HM gives him because he is a royal and earning the money he is paid out of our taxes. The republicans are looking for any lever they can find to drum up support for their cause and to see one of HM's children and his children abusing the HRH, is giving them ammunition.

 

[PadThaiPrincess]

This discussion has me curious as to what the generation before Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie were doing at their age. Anyone know what Princess Anne, Prince Edward, Prince Andrew and the Prince of Wales et. al. were doing duty wise when they were 17-18?

 

[reen]

Good point PadThaiPrincess. I don't think that Charles did much before he graduated from university. I don't think the criticism of how much Beatrice does or does not do should happen until she is at least 22.

As to the taxpayers money that Andrew does not 'earn'. I thought the Queen gave over her revenue of the Crown Estates in exchange for the Civil List money AND was funding Andrew and Edward.
Last I heard the government got way more money from this deal than they paid out, even counting the cost of protection and transportation for public duties for her family.
If the Queen were to take the revenues back from the Crown Estates and give up the Civil List payments and pay the expenses of her staff and family from the income, I'm sure there would be howls of protest at how much she would cost the country by her selfish actions.

 

[diamondBrg]

Good point PadThaiPrincess. I don't think that Charles did much before he graduated from university. I don't think the criticism of how much Beatrice does or does not do should happen until she is at least 22.

As to the taxpayers money that Andrew does not 'earn'. I thought the Queen gave over her revenue of the Crown Estates in exchange for the Civil List money AND was funding Andrew and Edward.
Last I heard the government got way more money from this deal than they paid out, even counting the cost of protection and transportation for public duties for her family.
If the Queen were to take the revenues back from the Crown Estates and give up the Civil List payments and pay the expenses of her staff and family from the income, I'm sure there would be howls of protest at how much she would cost the country by her selfish actions.

I totally agree with you. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between HM private money and public tax money? I personally fail to see why HM has to account for one red cent of what she does with her private money, it is really none of anyone else's business.

If there was really an outcry in large numbers, simply stop using tax money to fund the monarchy, as you suggested.

 

[Elspeth]

This discussion has me curious as to what the generation before Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie were doing at their age. Anyone know what Princess Anne, Prince Edward, Prince Andrew and the Prince of Wales et. al. were doing duty wise when they were 17-18?

After leaving school, Prince Charles and Prince Edward went to university; Prince Andrew went to the Naval College at Dartmouth; and Princess Anne combined royal duties with her competitive riding. However, they were children of the monarch, not grandchildren.

Earlier royals who were in a more equivalent situation to Beatrice and Eugenie, as children of younger sons of the monarch, would have been Prince William and Prince Richard of Gloucester and Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra of Kent (the present Duke of Kent inherited the title as a child, so his situation was a lot different).

Prince William of Gloucester went to university after leaving school and then went to work for a merchant bank, followed by a stint in the Civil Service.

Prince Richard of Gloucester went to university after leaving school, trained as an architect, and started a career in architecture which was cut short when his elder brother was killed and he had to start doing royal duties and prepare to inherit the Dukedom.

Prince Michael of Kent went to Sandhurst after school and was an Army officer for many years.

Princess Alexandra, if I remember right, did some nursing training and carried out royal duties after leaving school.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Times is not the only British mass media one could read to learn how unpopular Camilla and lazy lifestyle is since she joined the royal family. We could start quoting Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc to point out how low her public engagement is.

Oh please, start pointing that out. But for obvious reasons exclude the Daily Mail, please.

Camilla has a long way to earn her keep and impress many people in the public.

Do you really say that Camilla is a kept woman on living off her husband's purse?

 

[andrew]

.

I think they should be allowed some more years of freedom before joining the 'Firm', when Pr.Alexandra, Pr.Anne, Camilla and eventually Sophie get at the age when they must cut back dramatically their public duties, then should the York Princesses take over.

 

[Skydragon]

Times is not the only British mass media one could read to learn how unpopular Camilla and lazy lifestyle is since she joined the royal family. We could start quoting Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc to point out how low her public engagement is.

All the media outlets you mention, if you read them all, quote that they took their figures from the Times, whose list is compiled by a reader (retired Tim O'Donovan). If you read the UK papers, you will see that they have come around, on the whole to supporting Charles and Camilla, (apart from Kay and even he has his moments)

I've yet to see any large portion of the British public giving opinion on Andrew and his schedule, other than few tabloids headlines.I take such generalized claim with a grain of salt, after all many have claimed large portion of the public cannot stand Camilla and the prospect of her becoming their future queen. You see for every biases and claim, there is a counter one to it. And yes, I've read many of these post on Andrew and others

Andrew is seen by a lot of UK residents as unimportant, except for the fact that he misuses his position and the money he is given. One minute you are quoting the headlines to prove your case, even though you then go on to say it is all relative. Polls can never be indicative of the UK public as I am sure you are aware!

its been reported last month that she visited and took the time to write to injured soldiers, something the Queen, Prince Andrew and Princess Anne have been doing for years. Even Prince Andrew went to visit the troops in Iraq and other Middle East countries last year. Camilla has a long way to earn her keep and impress many people in the public.

Camilla has visited the troops on many occasions without the fanfare that Andrew requires. Camilla's visits were as Camilla, who happens to be The Duchess of Cornwall, totally informal. Andrew, Anne and even Charles have only visited in their official capacity and no, to my knowledge and heavy involvement in two arms of the services, HM has very rarely written to and never visited the injured soldiers or bereaved in their own homes! Again to my knowledge, nobody in Andrews regiments, when injured, has received a letter from him or a member of his staff.

Andrew was born into his job and the UK public can expect more from him and his sibling, Edward. We can certainly expect better behaviour from his daughters if he is intent on them keeping their HRH.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

We can certainly expect better behaviour from his daughters if he is intent on them keeping their HRH.

I think that's at the basis fo the problem: Beatrice is most of the time portrayed as a spoiled society brat, there is nothing in the media that outbalances this image. a lot we hear from her is: I want.... ...to be an astronaut, to be a fashion designer or a mini-mummy, .... to spent my gap year in London doing nothing. We don't ever hear anything that is important for the society (except that she spends a lot of money to get the economy going).

Okay, she is young and probably is blabbing to "sources" about her dreams but why doesn't she do something worth reporting? At the moment the RF obviously has no young, shining princess, fit for a fairy tale. But the media simply waits for one. If Beatrice would give them just a little bit of that, they'd love her. To quote Richard Kay (at the Diana inquest about why the Daily Mail supported Diana): "It found in Diana someone with whom our readers identified and we were therefore quite supportive of her."

I have no doubt if readers could identify with Beatrice, they would not hesitate for a moment to support her. But who wants to identify with that girlie?

 

[Fabulous Fake]

Jo of Palatine:

You make very valid points with which I agree.
Well said.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I think that's at the basis fo the problem: Beatrice is most of the time portrayed as a spoiled society brat, there is nothing in the media that outbalances this image. a lot we hear from her is: I want.... ...to be an astronaut, to be a fashion designer or a mini-mummy, .... to spent my gap year in London doing nothing. We don't ever hear anything that is important for the society (except that she spends a lot of money to get the economy going).

Okay, she is young and probably is blabbing to "sources" about her dreams but why doesn't she do something worth reporting? At the moment the RF obviously has no young, shining princess, fit for a fairy tale. But the media simply waits for one. If Beatrice would give them just a little bit of that, they'd love her. To quote Richard Kay (at the Diana inquest about why the Daily Mail supported Diana): "It found in Diana someone with whom our readers identified and we were therefore quite supportive of her."

I have no doubt if readers could identify with Beatrice, they would not hesitate for a moment to support her. But who wants to identify with that girlie?

I mostly agree with you here, Jo, but not about the need for fairy-tale princess. I hope the fairy-tale lust is dead forever. Fairy tales spin nightmares like Brothers Grimm.

I want more than anything, for Beatrice, to see Beatrice behave as herself. I want to see Beatrice, the real Beatrice, the person and get to know her and like her. Trying to be a kind of "people's princess" for Kay to cash in would be just another way of posing, I'm afraid.

 

[zembla]

I think that's at the basis fo the problem: Beatrice is most of the time portrayed as a spoiled society brat, there is nothing in the media that outbalances this image. a lot we hear from her is: I want.... ...to be an astronaut, to be a fashion designer or a mini-mummy, .... to spent my gap year in London doing nothing. We don't ever hear anything that is important for the society (except that she spends a lot of money to get the economy going).

Okay, she is young and probably is blabbing to "sources" about her dreams but why doesn't she do something worth reporting? At the moment the RF obviously has no young, shining princess, fit for a fairy tale. But the media simply waits for one. If Beatrice would give them just a little bit of that, they'd love her. To quote Richard Kay (at the Diana inquest about why the Daily Mail supported Diana): "It found in Diana someone with whom our readers identified and we were therefore quite supportive of her."

I have no doubt if readers could identify with Beatrice, they would not hesitate for a moment to support her. But who wants to identify with that girlie?

That's the Paris Hilton effect...these society girls that press follows say these big dreams to the media and then end up keeping up the same schedule: partying and doing nothing.

I'm surprised Bea hasn't brought up a trip to Darfur yet...

 

[ysbel]

I think that's at the basis fo the problem: Beatrice is most of the time portrayed as a spoiled society brat, there is nothing in the media that outbalances this image. a lot we hear from her is: I want.... ...to be an astronaut, to be a fashion designer or a mini-mummy, .... to spent my gap year in London doing nothing. We don't ever hear anything that is important for the society (except that she spends a lot of money to get the economy going).

Okay, she is young and probably is blabbing to "sources" about her dreams but why doesn't she do something worth reporting? At the moment the RF obviously has no young, shining princess, fit for a fairy tale. But the media simply waits for one. If Beatrice would give them just a little bit of that, they'd love her. To quote Richard Kay (at the Diana inquest about why the Daily Mail supported Diana): "It found in Diana someone with whom our readers identified and we were therefore quite supportive of her."

I have no doubt if readers could identify with Beatrice, they would not hesitate for a moment to support her. But who wants to identify with that girlie?

Can we please criticize royals without descending to calling them unflattering terms like girlie? Jo, you write some of the most intelligent posts on this board but you do your thoughts supreme injustice by letting them mix with cheap insults like this.

Now to answer your other excellent point; I think that Beatrice is getting flak for two reasons. For readers of my age (around 40 and we are more numerous that people of Beatrice's age) Beatrice is just another sign of another young spoiled rich kid of the younger generation with no sense of propriety and sense of responsibility. That may not be a fair assessment but I think a lot of people my age do think that way about the generation that is coming of age.

On the other hand, Beatrice is likely to be judged harshly by her generation because of her lack of looks and fashion sense. She doesn't have the look and the attitude that young people think of as cool.

I don't think Beatrice can make the fairy tale princess thing happen and I really don't think she should but if she can escape her coming of age with her self esteem intact she may be able to go in the mold of Caroline Kennedy who was incredibly awkward and very uncouth when she was in high school and college but who then focused on her strengths of intelligence and kindness and set up a rewarding life for herself.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Can we please criticize royals without descending to calling them unflattering terms like girlie? Jo, you write some of the most intelligent posts on this board but you do your thoughts supreme injustice by letting them mix with cheap insults like this.

Ysbel, I'm sorry if you felt it was not okay to use a term like "girlie" for princess Beatrice, but for me it's is not an insult (though no positive comment either) but a descriptional term like "Yuppie" or "DINK" (Double Income, no kids-couples). In this case a girlie is a (young) woman with money and known family background who likes fashion but looks ridiculous most of the time in her choices, prefers partying to doing something for society and appears more often than not as kind of intellectually challenged. Talk of Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and the likes. Or of a lot of MTV-presenters or similar young celebs. Young women who try to be seen but should IMHO neither be seen nor heard.

I'm a bit afraid she turns out a bit like her mother who is really a help- and hapless case when it comes to PR. Right now at the inquest Sarah had a statement read where she "can't recall" if she ever spoke to Diana about fears for her security. Well, IMHO that is a bad way to put it and in due note this was noticed by Michael Cole for the benefit of old Mo. If it has happened or not, she should have taken a position and either siad: no, I never did that or say: yes, I did it but..
This way she again embarrassed the RF, IMHO. And it seems young Beatrice seems to not have an idea about how to work with her image either. Just look, if someone like Britney Speasrs would talk about being "Brand Britney" she would do so on the basis that she has worked incredibly hard to come to the top from a young age. Okay, she had a breakdown now like Drew Barrymore had one or that former tennisstar Jennifer? but still she has done something to warrant the position in the public eye she now lost. While Beatrice was simply born and if she wants to take advantage of the position she was born into she should behave like a princess.

 

[zembla]

On the other hand, Beatrice is likely to be judged harshly by her generation because of her lack of looks and fashion sense. She doesn't have the look and the attitude that young people think of as cool.

That's a good point.

 

[ysbel]

Ysbel, I'm sorry if you felt it was not okay to use a term like "girlie" for princess Beatrice, but for me it's is not an insult (though no positive comment either) but a descriptional term like "Yuppie" or "DINK" (Double Income, no kids-couples). In this case a girlie is a (young) woman with money and known family background who likes fashion but looks ridiculous most of the time in her choices, prefers partying to doing something for society and appears more often than not as kind of intellectually challenged. Talk of Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and the likes. Or of a lot of MTV-presenters or similar young celebs. Young women who try to be seen but should IMHO neither be seen nor heard.

I'm sorry Jo but the way you describe the term girlie, it does sound like an insult.

We don't want to squash negative comments about royals but we do get a lot of complaints about underhanded insults towards one royal or another so I think if you want to be critical of a royal its best to explain exactly what you mean rather than use a shorthand term like girlie.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I'm sorry Jo but the way you describe the term girlie, it does sound like an insult.

We don't want to squash negative comments about royals but we do get a lot of complaints about underhanded insults towards one royal or another so I think if you want to be critical of a royal its best to explain exactly what you mean rather than use a shorthand term like girlie.

Okay, I'll try to be good the next time.

 

[ysbel]

Okay, I'll try to be good the next time.

No problem! You're one of the most informative members around. But we do try to make the forums comfortable for the whole crowd that might be interested in royals. That's all.

I'm a bit afraid she turns out a bit like her mother who is really a help- and hapless case when it comes to PR. Right now at the inquest Sarah had a statement read where she "can't recall" if she ever spoke to Diana about fears for her security. Well, IMHO that is a bad way to put it and in due note this was noticed by Michael Cole for the benefit of old Mo. If it has happened or not, she should have taken a position and either siad: no, I never did that or say: yes, I did it but...

I missed this statement. Well all I can say is that if Sarah really didn't remember if she spoke to Diana about her security then she is safer to say so rather than make something up that she did or she didn't. I imagine that a lot of witnesses in the inquest are going to sound silly when we realize their under oath testimony sounds a lot different from what they previously said in a book or a talk show. But I can't think of any valid reason to risk perjury even if Sarah wanted to protect the royal family.

I agree with you about Beatrice's lack of understanding about PR but I'm less disturbed by it because of her age. With Sarah I think she should know better but I'm willing to give Beatrice a break for a couple of years until she gets into the work force and then I'll be more critical of her.

 

[ysbel]

I totally agree with you. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between HM private money and public tax money? I personally fail to see why HM has to account for one red cent of what she does with her private money, it is really none of anyone else's business.

If there was really an outcry in large numbers, simply stop using tax money to fund the monarchy, as you suggested.

I think this is a subject for another thread but it seems we have already a thread about the future of the British monarchy.

Is it possible for the discussion about whether the royals are worth their tax money to take place in that thread or do you members think its best to have a separate thread on whether the Brit royals are worth their tax money? Poor Beatrice is getting her thread highjacked.

 

[PadThaiPrincess]

I agree with ysbel on the fact that Princess Beatrice does not have the fashion It Girl look to carry her into MTV Generation acceptance. She reminds me so much of Sarah and her awkward wardrobe choices that made her a target for ridicule.

 

[Lamyah]

Oh please, start pointing that out. But for obvious reasons exclude the Daily Mail, please.

All British media elements apply, you just need to take everything you read with a grain of salts, after all some of the senior royals have made some of these tabloids relevant news thanks to leaks and hearsay.

Do you really say that Camilla is a kept woman on living off her husband's purse?

why would you say she's a 'kept woman' other than in reference to her past 'mistress' title before marrying Charles in 2005?

All the media outlets you mention, if you read them all, quote that they took their figures from the Times, whose list is compiled by a reader (retired Tim O'Donovan). If you read the UK papers, you will see that they have come around, on the whole to supporting Charles and Camilla, (apart from Kay and even he has his moments)

it must have escaped me these tremendous support the media has for Charles and Camilla. and in reference to Times poll, what makes it 'illegitimate' other than the fact supposedly Camilla and Charles are coming short? I don't know about Time O'Donovan, I would like a link on that reference. What I've read on various media is YouGov poll conducted by the Times.

William Ahead of Charles in UK Monarchy Poll: Angus Reid Global Monitor

Prince William holds a slight advantage when Britons are asked about their preferred successor to Queen Elizabeth II, according to a poll by YouGov released by the Sunday Times. 42 per cent of respondents would like William to become the next king, while 36 per cent choose Prince Charles.

Here is a recent poll done by Discovery Channel:

Prince William favoured as next monarch | UK | Reuters
New crisis for Prince Charles as it emerges majority of Brits want William for king | the Daily Mail

anyway, let's get back to what this thread was about, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie's duties or lack thereof at the moment.

Andrew is seen by a lot of UK residents as unimportant, except for the fact that he misuses his position and the money he is given. One minute you are quoting the headlines to prove your case, even though you then go on to say it is all relative. Polls can never be indicative of the UK public as I am sure you are aware!

Is that your own conducted polling or do you refer to some evidence within public opinions based on sources you can post? Its one thing to state ones personal opinion, its another to provide absolute answers in a royal forum where its about suppositions and gossip media.

Camilla has visited the troops on many occasions without the fanfare that Andrew requires. Camilla's visits were as Camilla, who happens to be The Duchess of Cornwall, totally informal. Andrew, Anne and even Charles have only visited in their official capacity and no, to my knowledge and heavy involvement in two arms of the services, HM has very rarely written to and never visited the injured soldiers or bereaved in their own homes! Again to my knowledge, nobody in Andrews regiments, when injured, has received a letter from him or a member of his staff.

so giving direct support and doing your royal duty is considered 'fanfare'? Was Prince Philip visiting the troops last year in Afghanistan 'a fanfare'? If all the senior royals conducted their royal engagements in private or informally, there would be little purpose for the Monarchy since most people and government would wonder what they do all year.

lastly, if Camilla does as much for the troops as you claim, why hasn't any of the military divisions publish as they usually do when any officials public figures visits them. After all there is nothing informal when Camilla as a member of the royal family visits or writes to the troops, she has to do it via CH office, use official Prince of Wales recognized letters. One would think her 'lazy' image would be smashed by CH public relations machine, to show her dedication.

Andrew was born into his job and the UK public can expect more from him and his sibling, Edward. We can certainly expect better behaviour from his daughters if he is intent on them keeping their HRH.

that we can agree on and in my opinion he's doing a good job as a senior royal and his daughters have few more years to establish their place within the royal family. I would expect much more from William and Harry than a 19 and 17 yrs teenagers. They seem to be decent private young ladies living their lives amidst the intense media attention.