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

[Zonk]

I agree that both girls need to be ever mindful in the public eye when they are out and about...but aren't we being a little harsh.

Beatrice is in what..her second year in college and Eugenie is going to start in the Fall and we have people basically writing them off as failures in life and not being productive members of the British Royal Family. Based on what? And please let's not start with the parental units.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree that both girls need to be ever mindful in the public eye when they are out and about...but aren't we being a little harsh.

Beatrice is in what..her second year in college and Eugenie is going to start in the Fall and we have people basically writing them off as failures in life and not being productive members of the British Royal Family. Based on what? And please let's not start with the parental units.

Beatrice started uni last September and so is in her first year at uni with graduation planned for 2011. It is a joint honours degree in history and history of ideas at Goldsmiths, University of London.

She may very well take another gap year after that and start her career/full time duties in 2012 - the year of her grandmother's Diamond Jubilee.

 

[Royal Fan]

When Have other Royals started full time?

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Have other Royals started full time?

Princess Anne at ab 18 on leaving school.

Prince Charles at about 27 when he left the navy.

The Queen and Princess Margaret at 18 or so.

Prince Andrew in 2001 when he left the navy.

Prince Edward 2002 when he gave up the idea of having a non-royal related career.

Remember that Beatrice is the first British princess to go to uni so Princesses were expected to start earlier than the princes who did military duty first.

 

[muriel]

I'm going to go somewhere in between and say that William will become King probably in about 30 years....although the Queen Mother would have been 102 the year that she died, but even men with longevity in their genes don't (generally, for some unknown reason) live as long as the long-lived women in their family. But really, supposing William has children at about 35, and he becomes king at around 60, his children would be 25 and younger when he ascended the throne. Would they be performing full-time royal duties at that age? I wonder, given the fact that Harry is turning 25 and isn't doing so. What if William's sons wanted to do military training first, like William and Harry, before stepping on to the royal stage?

People are living longer nowadays, but they're also waiting much longer to start families. The Queen had two small children already when she was William and Harry's age, which is part of the reason Charles has waited as long as he has to become king.

Its always talking about situations like this, but even if William';schildren are between 20 and 25 and in fulltime training /education when he becomes King, it will only be a few years before the children enter public duties, so I still remain unconvinced of the need for the York girls to have anything other than a peripheral role in the BRF.

 

[muriel]

They should become involved With Girl Guides made CinCs of an Army Regiment or something.

IMO, I think a C in C role is highly unlikely for these girls in a hurry. As of now, I think they lack the credibility and the seniority to take these roles on.

 

[Skydragon]

They should become involved With Girl Guides made CinCs of an Army Regiment or something.

To become CiC, they have to be put forward and accepted, I wonder how many regiments would welcome them into the role?

 

[Menarue]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Sky and Muriel, they seem too scatterbrained to take on any of these responsible roles and besides that, I agree, what regiment would want either of them.

 

[Zonk]

Scatterbrained? And this decision is based upon what?

Exercising bad judgement in certain scenarios?

 

[Charlotte1]

Princess Anne at ab 18 on leaving school.

Prince Charles at about 27 when he left the navy.

The Queen and Princess Margaret at 18 or so.

Prince Andrew in 2001 when he left the navy.

Prince Edward 2002 when he gave up the idea of having a non-royal related career.

Remember that Beatrice is the first British princess to go to uni so Princesses were expected to start earlier than the princes who did military duty first.

Anne didn't actually begin fulltime royal duties until she was in her early 30ties. She was a fulltime equestrian ( like her daughter Zara is now) until she retired after the 1976 Olympics, she then got pregnant with her first child and then Zara, it wasn't until the early 1980s that Anne started her fulltime royal work.

Charles ( as heir to the throne) began at the youngest age of 27. Andrew was 41, Edward in his late 30ties.

The Queen and Princess Margaret did perform duties from a young age but no more than what Beatrice and Eugenie currently attend. ( Official ceremonies, weddings etc and they were children of the monarch not grandchildren like B & E) In earlier years royals didn't perform the same number of engagements as has become the norm, Prince Philip set the bar rather high.

Compare B & E with 2 other grandchildren of a monarch, prince Amedeo and Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. The Belgium 2 attend no royal engagements, Amedeo is currently on a gap year wandering the world too but with a lot more privacy than the British royals get.

 

[Menarue]

Scatterbrained? And this decision is based upon what?

Exercising bad judgement in certain scenarios?

My answer is Yes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Anne didn't actually begin fulltime royal duties until she was in her early 30ties. She was a fulltime equestrian ( like her daughter Zara is now) until she retired after the 1976 Olympics, she then got pregnant with her first child and then Zara, it wasn't until the early 1980s that Anne started her fulltime royal work.

Anne was a full time royal by 1970 with her equestrian duties and training fitted in to that schedule. She started royal duties in her teens.

She became President of Save the Children in 1970 and was undertaking 100s of duties at that stage.

She was doing overseas tours as well as many engagements at home.

At that time she was also on the Civil List so probably felt a need to work to justify her pay.

In the 1970s athletes weren't full time the way they are now. In fact a professional athlete couldn't have competed at the Olympic Games so if she was only being an equestrianne she was ineligible for the Games. She would therefore have to show that she was not making her living from her equestrianism in order to compete. She was able to do that simply by working as a royal.

According the the New Zealand Monarchist website she began full time royal duties aged 18 (1968)
http://nzmonarchist.blogspot.com/2006/08/happy-birthday-hrh-anne-princess-royal.html


This is also supported by the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A11580266

 

[Zonk]

My answer is Yes.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion...but exercising bad judgement doesn't mean you scatterbrained IMO.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well, imo they will end up as socialites, exploiting their royal title in order to fund their livestyles as they are completely unimportant for the institution. I predict a Princess Margaret scenario but much will depend on their choice of husbands. If they are going for the Lord Snowdon / P Junot type we will have many years of headlines ahead of us

They both have inherited too many party / wild life genes to live a quiet duty life - a mixture between their mother who does the socialite lifestyle on the basis that she once was a HRH and their father, prince andrew, for a reason aka "randy andy" or "airmiles andy", who does accommodate his title and duties as son of the monarch but also knows very well how to use his HRH for his own purposes or having a damn good time.

 

[Charlotte1]

Anne was a full time royal by 1970 with her equestrian duties and training fitted in to that schedule. She started royal duties in her teens.

She became President of Save the Children in 1970 and was undertaking 100s of duties at that stage.

She was doing overseas tours as well as many engagements at home.

At that time she was also on the Civil List so probably felt a need to work to justify her pay.

In the 1970s athletes weren't full time the way they are now. In fact a professional athlete couldn't have competed at the Olympic Games so if she was only being an equestrianne she was ineligible for the Games. She would therefore have to show that she was not making her living from her equestrianism in order to compete. She was able to do that simply by working as a royal.

According the the New Zealand Monarchist website she began full time royal duties aged 18 (1968)
New Zealand Monarchy: Happy Birthday: HRH Anne Princess Royal

If she had another role, training as an equestrian, then she wasn't a fulltime royal. A fulltime royal only does royal engagements, they have no other role. So be definition of the fact that she was competing competitively and training then she wasn't a fulltime royal. Andrew and Edward also carried out large numbers of engagements when they had other jobs but they are not considered fulltime royals until they left the navy and film business. The Duke of Kent also carried out numerous official engagements ( including overseas trips)while he was in the army and yet he isn't considered as taking on fulltime royal work until he left the army in the late 1970's.

I'm sure the NZ monarchist site just lists her as taking on fulltime royal duties at 18 as she didn't go on to university rather than looking at what she actually did. Anne didn't start with a heavy load of engagements until the mid to late 1980's, that can be confirmed by checking the Court circular.

 

[muriel]

I think the issue is not what age the York girls might start undertaking royal roles, but whether they should carry out any royal roles at all, other than appearing on the balcony once in a while, or perhaps at Christmas. If they want to do some charitable work,they can do so in ther spare time, but their main focus should be to build independent careers for themselves, away from royal duties. It does not matter to mean what they choose to do with their lives: as teachers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, social workers.. entirely their choice!

 

[Zonk]

Well, imo they will end up as socialites, exploiting their royal title in order to fund their livestyles as they are completely unimportant for the institution. I predict a Princess Margaret scenario but much will depend on their choice of husbands. If they are going for the Lord Snowdon / P Junot type we will have many years of headlines ahead of us

They both have inherited too many party / wild life genes to live a quiet duty life - a mixture between their mother who does the socialite lifestyle on the basis that she once was a HRH and their father, prince andrew, for a reason aka "randy andy" or "airmiles andy", who does accommodate his title and duties as son of the monarch but also knows very well how to use his HRH for his own purposes or having a damn good time.

And here we go again..it appears that some of us are making judgement calls and assumptions based on the lives, actions and attidues of Sarah and Andrew. Beatrice and Eugenie are their own personas with their individual opinions, likes/dislikes and experiences. Do parents play a role in how children develop opinions, likes/dislikes, etc? Of course they do but they so do grandparents, friends and just plain doing it for yourself.

I have been thinking about Beatrice and Eugenie (and pretty much the Yorks) and how they are viewed here in the Forums: The York family (particulary the parents) are viewed in a harsh, negative light (some deserved and some IMO not deserved) and their kids are viewed in the same manner simply because they are the daughters of Andrew and Sarah. Now don't get me wrong...some of things they do are not that smart (drinking, stumbling around while under the influence, etc.) Its like the Smith family in any particular town in any particular country..and the Smith kids are treated with contempt simply because of their last name. Think about a movie or television show when one says...Well...he/she will never amount to anything. He/She will just be like their mother/father.

Its quite sad really.

 

[Menarue]

Although you have a point about the girls being judged by their parents this would not matter if they behaved sensibly.
If these girls were better behaved in public then I doubt that anyone would remember that their mother had a reputation for bad judgement and doing the wrong thing in public.

 

[Zonk]

Although you have a point about the girls being judged by their parents this would not matter if they behaved sensibly.
If these girls were better behaved in public then I doubt that anyone would remember that their mother had a reputation for bad judgement and doing the wrong thing in public.

Honestly...I am not sure if they behaved sensibly it would matter. Its like people are waiting for them to make mistakes (that many youth do make regardless of position) so they can say...Well, what do you really expect? They are the children of so and so.

I wonder if we would all have this attitude if they were the children of Edward and Sophie?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Do parents play a role in how children develop opinions, likes/dislikes, etc? Of course they do but they so do grandparents, friends and just plain doing it for yourself.

Usually parents not only have influence but are the main or dominating influence during childhood.

I have been thinking about Beatrice and Eugenie (and pretty much the Yorks) and how they are viewed here in the Forums: The York family (particulary the parents) are viewed in a harsh, negative light (some deserved and some IMO not deserved) and their kids are viewed in the same manner simply because they are the daughters of Andrew and Sarah. Now don't get me wrong...some of things they do are not that smart (drinking, stumbling around while under the influence, etc.)

And still there is no justification for a negative opinion?

Its like the Smith family in any particular town in any particular country..and the Smith kids are treated with contempt simply because of their last name.

The York girls are not treated with contempt because of their last name but because of their actions and unlike the Smith family they are representatives of a country, royals who are partly funded by the taxpayer. Huge difference.

It is beyond me why critizising a Princess for running around drunk or naked etc etc etc (not a one-off by far) is always being received as "bashing a York girl". No it's not their name it's the unsuitable way they behave in public.

 

[Menarue]

Very true but I think it has something to do with the fact that the British people are more affected by the behaviour of the royal princesses than people from another country who just think it is just young people letting off steam.
When they cost the British tax payer so much to keep them in the way they are accustomed (security etc) then it is only natural that these tax payers, who are feeling the pinch at the moment, feel the way they do, especially as the Royal Family up until now has always been so respected.
Sophie and Edward´s children? Not old enough yet to cavort about half naked and get alcoholised, and I hope they will be brought up in a very different way to these York girls.
The parents are at least making a very good start, no titles, no security, I just hope they keep it up.

 

[Zonk]

Okay..these half naked references are stretching it a bit IMO.

Are you referring to pictures of the York girls in bathing suits. Since when is wearing a two piece considered running around naked?

And yes, you are absolutely correct. The British taxpayer has every right to expect something from the York girls if they are going to subsidize their lifestyle and/or security. My point is when is it acceptable to write two young ladies off at the age at the ages of 21 and 19 as non contributing members of society? As if the actions of the last two years will be all that they will be remembered for? I definitely agree that they need to step up their game and be mindful that they are not regular British teenagers but come on?

And for those who don't consider this bashing...well then you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I guess I would ask you to go back a couple of pages in this thread, any current events thread of Beatrice and Eugenie and let me know if how many positive or neutral posts that you can find about these two young ladies? Its going to be quite the challenge. In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and say that all the negative posting has scared away the positive posters (or the gushers as some would say) away.

Is it too much too ask for a balanced discussion about Beatrice and Eugenie? Both the good and the bad?

And how do we know that James and Louise don't have any security? I am sure there is some type of security watching those kids. But because of their age we don't see them out as much.

 

[Menarue]

It is not the posters fault that the girls seem to do more negative acts than positive.
How do you know that positive (or gushers as you called them) are scared away, perhaps they are at a bit of a loss to find gushing things to say!
The half naked was referring to when Princess Eugenie took off the top half of her bikini and was photographed, perhaps you missed it and don´t ask me for the link as I have no idea where it was but it was referred to at the time.

When the girls show a bit of discretion and behave as the British public and tax payer expects then of course they will not be written off as no-hopers, until then I think that everyone has a right to an opinion. In fact it would be good to see some sign of the girls showing that they know how to behave in public and in turn show their respect for the British people who, because of their royal birth, have to show respect for them by curtseying and giviing precedence. Noblesse oblige.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Okay..these half naked references are stretching it a bit IMO.
Are you referring to pictures of the York girls in bathing suits. Since when is wearing a two piece considered running around naked?

I was actually referring to the Marlborough College incident (thankfully there are no pictures) when Eugenie was found drunk and naked on campus grounds.

And for those who don't consider this bashing...well then you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I guess I would ask you to go back a couple of pages in this thread, any current events thread of Beatrice and Eugenie and let me know if how many positive or neutral posts that you can find about these two young ladies? Its going to be quite the challenge. ... Is it too much too ask for a balanced discussion about Beatrice and Eugenie? Both the good and the bad?

Sadly it's quite a challenge to find something positive about the York girls these days because their recent actions caused a lot of negative coverage, and this simply reflects on posters / posts. It's not that other royals are being praised on this forum for similar actions because their last name is not York.

 

[iowabelle]

I think that we should all take a breath and give the girls a break. Those of us who are older and haven't developed "old timers' disease" yet should remember the grand old days of Princess Anne cussing at reporters, Randy Andy and his soft core porn actress, Edward throwing hissy fits at the media, Princess Margaret and her men and drinking... none of this is anything new. The only thing that's new is the amount of reporters (?) and coverage that the girls (and Prince Harry) get.

And it seems that every generation of royal watchers needs one or more "bad" royals... and Harry and the York girls fit the bill. That's the pattern we've had since the days of Queen Victoria's grandchildren (and even longer if you delve into the Hanoverians, most of whom merited their bad reputations).

Of course, it would help if the girls would also take a breath and think before they leap.

 

[Elspeth]

It is not the posters fault that the girls seem to do more negative acts than positive.
How do you know that positive (or gushers as you called them) are scared away, perhaps they are at a bit of a loss to find gushing things to say!

We know because people PM the mod and admin teams to say so.

 

[ada]

Quite simply, respect has to be earned, or very few people will fund or attend events with PB and PE as the draw card.

 

[Menarue]

We know because people PM the mod and admin teams to say so.

I find it strange that someone would do this, especially if they have knowledge of something good to counterract the "silly girl" posts that appear about these two. It would be far more useful to a debate to present something positive rather than to run crying to a mod about the bad people saying negative things.
I, for one, would welcome some news about the princesses that puts them in a better light, it would show that they are finally seeing more to life than gadding about.
I hope these pm people read the comments from the British public that appear under the different articles in the tabloids, they are more than a little depressing for people who would like to see the BRF receive the respect they have always had (and earned) before the younger generation started appearing in public with their lifestyle.
I am not saying that this didn´t happen before in past generations, I am sure there were very wild carryings-on, but out of the public eye and the vigilant eyes of photographers. Discretion is what these girls should practise, they know full well that they are being followed and that anything they do that attracts attention will be photographed and appear in the next editions of the tabloids.

 

[muriel]

I find it strange that someone would do this, especially if they have knowledge of something good to counterract the "silly girl" posts that appear about these two. It would be far more useful to a debate to present something positive rather than to run crying to a mod about the bad people saying negative things.
I, for one, would welcome some news about the princesses that puts them in a better light, it would show that they are finally seeing more to life than gadding about.
I hope these pm people read the comments from the British public that appear under the different articles in the tabloids, they are more than a little depressing for people who would like to see the BRF receive the respect they have always had (and earned) before the younger generation started appearing in public with their lifestyle.
I am not saying that this didn´t happen before in past generations, I am sure there were very wild carryings-on, but out of the public eye and the vigilant eyes of photographers. Discretion is what these girls should practise, they know full well that they are being followed and that anything they do that attracts attention will be photographed and appear in the next editions of the tabloids.

As most of you may know, I am not a fan of the York girls per se. That said,I do think there does need to be a degree of objectivity in how these girls are viewed. A few points to note, IMO:

1) The girls are still very young, and so one does need to cut them some slack for that. Going out, getting drunk every now and then is all part of growing up, and most young people do that. I certainly did, and am not about to stand to judgement on that. IMO, the problem arises when Bea is seen coming out of Nobu and other top restaurants and clubs with alarming regularity, mid week. This helps foster the image of a spoilt child, and it is then that people start to ask why these girls are not doing more useful things with their lives.

2) I do think it was a missed opportunity for the girls to do something socially useful in their respective gap years. I accept that travel is an important part of ones broader education, but like Wills and Harry, they could have done something constructive as part of their travels. That said, it is still not too late for the girls to start workign with 1-2 charities each - and by that I mean doing some work as opposed to showingup at a charity fundraiser in their gladrags.

3) I think this whole debate about the girls ought to be careful of where they go and how often they go because fo the cost of security is a bit pointless. My view is that it is for the government of the day to decide who gets security cover and who does not, based on a risk assessment carried out by the government, the Police and the Home Office working in consultation with the Palace. If it has been decided that somebody ought to get cover, it is completely pointless for observers and the media to then whinge. You cannot restrict peoples movements just because they now security funded by the tax payers, IMO.

In summary, I have no doubt that the girls can certainly do more to earn the respect of the public, and perhaps exercise some more judgement at times. But in my book, it is still too early to just write them off. That is what the tabloids are doing becuase it helps sell papers, but I do wish we would stop the carte blanche York girls bashing on TRF!

 

[Menarue]

There we go again, it is not bashing writing about the need for the girls to get their act together - fast, it is constructive criticism and I am fairly certain that some people who will read this will carry the message back to the palace.
It was an ex security officer who said that it was unnecessary to have so much security for minor members of the royal family, but it is said it has been insisted on by their father... that said, if they do really need security then they could co-operate more and try and lead a more conservative and discreet lifestyle.
No one is writing them off, they need to learn, and quickly, that the picture they are showing the world in general is not a good one and they or their parents should have more sense.
Perhaps if their father had to foot the bill for security he would cut down on some of his daughters´ activities.
We can only hope that these girls will give a more favourable direction to their lives, and by this I don´t mean showing up at some charity do, I think they should carry on their studies and do something worthwhile with their lives not become figureheads, that is for more senior members of their family.
BTW someone could always start a Beatrice and Eugenie "gushers thread" if necessary, nothing wrong with that, sensible people with hopes for the BRF could keep away.