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.
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.

I actually regard Councillors of State as senior members of the RF and, unless a very long lived Queen (like one who outlives her mother and has her eldest son also live that long) Beatrice will serve as a Councillor of State.

The Councillors of State are the first four in line to the throne who are over 18 so unless William or Harry have a child turn 18 during the present reign Beatrice will be a Councillor of State at some point and it isn't beyond the realms of possiblity that Eugenie will as well. For that not to happen then Charles will have to have 2 grandchildren over 18 during his reign. I hope that he does get to see that happen but remember that neither of his sons are married and it would be over a year from now before either of them could become fathers (and Harry is now not in a steady relationship).

If William married this year and had a child next year the Queen would have to live until 2028 to stop Beatrice becoming a Councillor of State. Yes I know her mother lived that long but how many people actually reach 102. At that point Charles would be 79 and still only have one grandchild aged 18.

It is another reason why Beatrice and Eugenie need to be involved in royal work at some level - they may simply have to carry out the duties of monarch if the monarch is out of the country. Less likely for Eugenie due to her being 5th but very likely for Beatrice.
 
:previous:

I agree, but before they become Councillors of State I think these two girls have quite a distance to go. My fear is that with all the carryings-on by the younger generations that there will be no need for Councillors of State or even the BRF.
I see today an article in one of the tabloids saying how the Queen has downgraded her birthday to a dinner at Prince Edward´s with 16 guests. The idea being to cut costs in these difficult times. Even so there were people in the comments that resented even a small birthday party, I take no notice of this except as a sign of "royal familily fatigue" and quite worrying for those of us that want the monarchy to stay.
 
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.
All sounds good but in reality it is the senior staff at BP, in consultation with HM and the DoY that make the decision. If Andrew wants security, mummy is not going to cause him distress by telling the PM or the police commissioner to drop the unneccessary protection for his daughters.
it is constructive criticism and I am fairly certain that some people who will read this will carry the message back to the palace.
I am sure they do on a regular basis but unless the parents are willing to take notice, there seems to be little they can do without causing the tantrum of the century! :D
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...
Some of the royals have already dropped the security for overseas visits and don't have any in the UK.
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.
Agreed! :D
 
:previous:

I agree, but before they become Councillors of State I think these two girls have quite a distance to go. My fear is that with all the carryings-on by the younger generations that there will be no need for Councillors of State or even the BRF.
I see today an article in one of the tabloids saying how the Queen has downgraded her birthday to a dinner at Prince Edward´s with 16 guests. The idea being to cut costs in these difficult times. Even so there were people in the comments that resented even a small birthday party, I take no notice of this except as a sign of "royal familily fatigue" and quite worrying for those of us that want the monarchy to stay.


There is no question about them becoming Coucillors of State. If the Queen dies then Beatrice is eligible and it isn't a matter of whether she is good enough she is eligible and if the three ahead of her were all absent from the country at the same time then she would have to do the job.

The criteria is simply the next four in the order of succession over 18 and nothing more - nothing about their behaviour etc.
 
There is no question about them becoming Coucillors of State. If the Queen dies then Beatrice is eligible and it isn't a matter of whether she is good enough she is eligible and if the three ahead of her were all absent from the country at the same time then she would have to do the job.

The criteria is simply the next four in the order of succession over 18 and nothing more - nothing about their behaviour etc.

It maybe that Queen Victoria´s genes will suddenly appear, she was said to have been a "genius of common sense". We can only hope.:flowers:
 
I was actually referring to the Marlborough College incident (thankfully there are no pictures) when Eugenie was found drunk and naked on campus grounds.
A bit of factual accuracy would be good here. Eugenie was not found drunk, as for naked the alleged incident was 'frollicking naked on the school playing fields with a group of students' There has never been any confirmation that this actually happened, it was supposed to be end of final year of high school high jinks. But the school made no comment and neither did any students as to whether it actually happened.
Beatrice and Eugenie are condemned far too quickly for preceived bad behaviour. For example, the first lot of photos taken of Beatrice coming out of a nightclub it was claimed that she was drunk. The photos certainly look as if she is, eyes going in different directions ( quite well-known photos) So lots of 'what a disgrace she is' indignant commentary from the condemners of these girls. Later in a very small article it came out that Beatrice was startled by the photographers, eyes going everywhere, but she then walked to her car accompanied by her protection officer and then drove home with the protection officer seated in the passenger seat. Had she been drinking there's no way that the protection officers would have let her drive, she certainly wasn't drunk but got condemned by the critical squad for being a disgrace. A static picture doesn't always tell what one assumes. Especially if one wants to assume the worst.
but it is said it has been insisted on by their father...
Ah, there's the issue, 'it is said that Andrew insists on fulltime protection for his daughters' Assumptions but no definite proof. All HRHs receive protection from the Royal Protection Squad, including Prince Michael ( and princess) of Kent even though they carry out no official duties. So when P. Michael goes on a business trip to Russia ( to make money for himself) or Pness Michael goes to her Carribean Island to work on her books for a month each year, they do so with 24/7 Police protection. Peter. Zara, Lord Frederik, Lady Ella don't receive police protection as they aren't HRHs. I think that the Wessex children who technically as grandchildren of a monarch as HRHs but are being styled as children of an Earl probably don't receive 24/7 police protection. Andrew doesn't make the rules as to who gets protection, all royal protection was upgraded to 24/7 after the kidnap attempt on Anne in 1974. The minor royals the Kents, Gloucestors, even though they were HRHs received no police protection as late as the early 60's, the security on the royals has been upgraded over the years.
Some of the royals have already dropped the security for overseas visits and don't have any in the UK.
The report that was in the paper was in relation to the Duke and Duchess of Gloucestor not receiving 24/7 security from the British police on a trip to the US. It said nothing about them not having protection in the UK, Diana chose not to have protection after she separated from Charles but it was against police advice. With the overseas trips of minor royals the host countries are being asked to provide the covering protection so the cost is less for the British police, they don't have to send the teams over to cover. The minor royals aren't left with no protection, it's just not the British who are supplying it.
Beatrice and Eugenie are being condemned for the sins of their parents.
So far both have finished high school with good grades, one is at university the other plans to attend later this year.Beatrice has a steady boyfriend who has a fulltime job, graduated from a good university and who's family is discrete and neither he nor any member of his family has sold any expose to the tabloids. Both support their grandmother at all formal events ( last one being the unveiling of the QM statue) Both are prepared to be involved in charity events, Beatrice recently attended a reception for the Teenage cancer trust ( Hellomagazine covered it) Eugenie on her Gap Year went to a project her mother's charity Children in Crisis in involved in in Poland, she also made a private visit to Auschwitz. ( this was in January and it was a tiny article in the media) Bikini pictures get soo much more coverage! Beatrice has taken on a role with Children in Crisis, no official patronages have been alloted to them but then they are still completing their education. William got his first ones after he graduated from university and Harry after he graduated from Sandhurst.
Both girls are polite to the media, no following in aunt Anne's footsteps here. Both have gone with their father on his business trips, and at the reception for the G20 participants that the Queen gave at Buckingham Palace Beatrice accompanied her father. Neither are rebelling against the royal fold ( as in the past Marina Ogilvy, daughter of Princess Alexandra, nasty story in the tabloids as well as pictures of her being voted 'rear of the year' and wearing pvc plastic pants.) Some of us have been following royals for a while! Beatrice and Eugenie are quiet compared to Princess Margaret in her hey day, even the Duke of Kent in the 1950s.
 
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.

Am I correct in thinking that you seem to be willing to believe what an ex security officer may be saying to a tabloid versus the judgement of the government and the Royal Household (or Prince Andrew and HM as Sky has suggested) as to the need for security?

I personally don't think they need security, but if it has been decided by people who are in charge, then so be it, is my view.


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.

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.

Could not agree more!

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.

If my suggestion of using a little objectivity in viewing facts relating to the York girls as opposed to the carte blanche bashing that seems de rigeur needs to be relegated to a "gushers thread" in your opinion, then we can at best agree to disagree on this point.
 
A bit of factual accuracy would be good here.
Accuracy is always good.
Beatrice and Eugenie are condemned far too quickly for preceived bad behaviour.
Most people seem to work on the same facts as everyone else on here, not just preconceived ideas.
For example, the first lot of photos taken of Beatrice coming out of a nightclub it was claimed that she was drunk. The photos certainly look as if she is, eyes going in different directions ( quite well-known photos)
And then we have the reported fact that Beatrice was so drunk she forgot she had a driver waiting and tried to wander off to summon a cab.
Ah, there's the issue, 'it is said that Andrew insists on fulltime protection for his daughters' Assumptions but no definite proof.
Except for the police officer in charge telling the press!:rolleyes:
Andrew doesn't make the rules as to who gets protection,
According to the PPO involved, he does where his daughters are concerned.
Beatrice and Eugenie are being condemned for the sins of their parents.
It seems to me, they are being condemned for their own actions, nothing to do with their parents sins, apart from the lack of parental advice they seem to receive or ignore.
Both have gone with their father on his business trips
No they both got the chance of a tax paid holiday by pretending to be 'in training for royal duties', if either of them are appointed to the same job as Andrew, which is all he could be training them for, we had better invest more in golf clubs.
Some of us have been following royals for a while!
Indeed, but you are not the only one and to imply that anyone who has a different view to your own must only be a recent watcher, becomes jaded after a while!:rolleyes:
 
All sounds good but in reality it is the senior staff at BP, in consultation with HM and the DoY that make the decision. If Andrew wants security, mummy is not going to cause him distress by telling the PM or the police commissioner to drop the unneccessary protection for his daughters.

But "mummy" hardly seems the shrinking violet who can be bullied by her children into getting their selfish ways.
 
HM the Queen was said by her own husband to be an extremely tolerant woman and I don´t think she has been bullied by her children but I am sure as a fond mother she would not want to cause distress to her favourite son. Actually the Queen was bullied once that I can remember but it was by the hysterical public when her ex-daughter-in-law died.
Actually I wish she weren´t so tolerant where her granddaughters are concerned but that is just my opinion.
 
:previous: Who can forget the way HM gave in to her mothers demands? I think HM has always favoured her younger sons over Anne and Charles, so I do believe in this case, as with her mother, she is quite easy to bully.:flowers: In answer to your question (that I can't find at the moment:ermm:)
I would be very surprised if these girls were made Councillors of State. I am not very familiar with the rules
Should there be a need for The Privy Council to meet in The Queen's absence, Her Majesty, by Letters Patent, creates senior members of the Royal Family Councillors of State, enabling them to represent her in summoning a Privy Council meeting
So, it is not automatically given to the top four.:flowers:
 
HM the Queen was said by her own husband to be an extremely tolerant woman and I don´t think she has been bullied by her children but I am sure as a fond mother she would not want to cause distress to her favourite son. Actually the Queen was bullied once that I can remember but it was by the hysterical public when her ex-daughter-in-law died.
Actually I wish she weren´t so tolerant where her granddaughters are concerned but that is just my opinion.

.... so are you suggesting that HM puts the demands of her petty (or soemtimes petulant?) children above her duty to crown and country?
 
.... so are you suggesting that HM puts the demands of her petty (or soemtimes petulant?) children above her duty to crown and country?
Being the parent of 'adult' children myself, I wouldn't blame HM at all for opting for the quiet life!:ROFLMAO:
 
:previous: Who can forget the way HM gave in to her mothers demands? I think HM has always favoured her younger sons over Anne and Charles, so I do believe in this case, as with her mother, she is quite easy to bully.:flowers: In answer to your question (that I can't find at the moment:ermm:)So, it is not automatically given to the top four.:flowers:

Be that as it may, it would not be the Queen but Charles who would need to be bullied to make either of the York girls Counsellors in State.

The reason you can't find the post is that I deleted it after I saw on Wiki that "The Counsellors of State are the consort of the monarch and the first four people in the line of succession who meet the qualifications"

Counsellor of State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well...according to the Buckingham Palace site, found here The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Government > Counsellors of State.

And I am taking this from the site directly:

Counsellors of State are appointed from among the following: The Duke of Edinburgh and the four adults next in succession (provided they have reached the age of 21).
These are currently The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales and The Duke of York.

So if and when Charless succeeds to the throne, and his father is deceased as well. It would be Prince William of Wales, Princes Harry of Wales, The Duke of York and Princess Beatrice of York (provided she has reached the age of 21).
 
I wonder why the difference between the sites, lets hope William and Harry hurry up, marry and have children. Can you imagine the work for the mods if either girl was made a CoS?:ohmy:
 
I wonder why the difference between the sites, lets hope William and Harry hurry up, marry and have children. Can you imagine the work for the mods if either girl was made a CoS?:ohmy:

Well...William and Harry's kids need to be at least 21. But don't give up on Beatrice and Eugenie yet...which is my point.

They have had stumbles in the past (please pardon the pun) but I truly believe that its not over til its over!
 
Well...William and Harry's kids need to be at least 21. But don't give up on Beatrice and Eugenie yet...which is my point.

They have had stumbles in the past (please pardon the pun) but I truly believe that its not over til its over!
I haven't quite given up on them... yet.

It is rather depressing to see 20-30 somethings who were staunch believers in the monarchy and the royal family, start talking about republics after each and every misdemeanor is given space in the paper, these are the youngsters who may ultimely decide the fate of the system. This doesn't just apply to B & E, but to W & H, Andrew and the alleged tax dodges applied by HM and Charles.:flowers:
 
Actually the thought of Princess Beatrice becoming a CoS makes a good argument for the anti-monarchists, but one never knows, she might become another Princess Anne in the future.
 
And then we have the reported fact that Beatrice was so drunk she forgot she had a driver waiting and tried to wander off to summon a cab. Except for the police officer in charge telling the press!:rolleyes:

I'm glad that Charlotte1 brought up the point that there was no evidence Eugenie was drunk and naked at Marlborough College. I want to make a similar correction here that it was never "reported fact" that the reason Beatrice forgot she had a driver was because she was "so drunk."
Remember, Beatrice's car was stolen when she left her keys in her car and wandered into a shop without locking the door. I think it's unlikely she was drunk in the middle of the day. So maybe Beatrice is naturally a bit of a scatterbrain and she just forgot that she had a driver because her mind was elsewhere. I mean, how do we know for a "fact" that she was completely drunk when she forgot her driver? Even if she was, maybe she was just a little tipsy.

Charlotte1 brought up a really good point when she mentioned the pictures of Beatrice that made her appear drunk, and then the news that came out later that she had been allowed to drive home, something that (hopefully!) wouldn't have been allowed if she had too much to drink. The tabloids jump to conclusions and post the most unflattering pictures, and I honestly think after awhile people get so exposed to these types of stories about Beatrice and Eugenie that they think "these are the only things the girls do." I have read reports of them attending charity functions, but that doesn't seem to generate much discussion.

William and Harry have made their fair share of mistakes as well, and they are criticized for them, but I honestly don't see the same level of vitriol in their threads as I do here. I don't know whether it's because there's a double standard due to their gender, or because they're not Andrew and Sarah's kids, but William and Harry seem to get off from their mistakes a little easier than their cousins, despite doing the same things.
 
The problem is nothing to do with who their parents are. Running naked at school is not appropriate behaviour for a young HRH, neither is frolicking with a friend and being photographed with this friend cupping her royal breasts.
They are the ones that are being badly behaved and if it is noticed and remarked on this thread who is at fault? Are they above censure?
It is a sad fact that boys do get off with their mistakes a little easier than girls when doing the same things but so far I haven´t seen either Prince being groped by his friends in full view of a photographer. I hope I never do.
 
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.

Someone could start a "gushers thread," but it wouldn't last long. We aren't a fan site any more than a site to dish gossip and try to compete with each other for the nastiest names to call people.

What we're hoping for in these threads is a reasoned discussion of the issues, not constant mindless gushing and not unrelieved repetitive bashing. In forum after forum we seem to have cases where people take extreme positions on one side or the other and just yell at each other. Someone who shows up with a view which includes some shades of grey will get yelled at by the gushers for any hint of negativity and will get yelled at by the haters for any hint of positivity. It's hardly surprising that those people eventually tend to give up and go away and leave the field to the loudest shouters. Which is a shame, because they're the very ones we'd like to encourage.

And they're the ones who are PMing the mods, in answer to your expression of surprise a few posts ago.
 
I think you should encourage them more then if they are frightened away just because some people are/aren´t impressed by the York girls. I have never yelled at anyone in my life nor am I a hater, I could never hate anyone that I don´t know personally and to tell you the truth there is no one that I hate in real life let alone on a thread about two silly girls who need to learn how to behave in a way more befitting a member of the British royal family. They are young, as is pointed out so often in these threads, and perhaps they will learn, we can only hope.
I am not surprised at people pm ing mods, I believe quite a few people do, in fact I believe quite a few people press the report button as well, if instead of putting forward a rational argument they prefer to complain then that is their affair.
 
Oh, we have all sorts of people complaining, including relentlessly negative posters complaining that we only allow positive comments and gushers complaining that we only allow negative ones. Unfortunately it does seem to be the least extreme posters who bow out of the threads sooner than the more extreme ones. As the mods and admins have been saying for a while now, we don't want threads to be a parade of gushing praise, nor do we need to have current-events threads turning into lists of all the iniquities of a particular royal back to the year dot every time he or she does something stupid but dead silence or snide "praise" when he or she does something good. Some of these threads are getting to be really painful to read.
 
Perhaps we should make this a "fashion thread", oh dear, that is perhaps not a very good idea.

Or maybe we could start off by making a list of positive things that they have done so far this year?
 
Or maybe we could stick to the thread topic and drop the sarcasm?
 
Has anyone considered the possibility that the girls might think that if they're going to be labelled as "bad" and condemned, that they may as well go ahead and earn that label?

And a lot of things they're condemned for aren't bad things. It's no crime to weigh more than Callista Flockhart or to have problems creating a becoming look for yourself. (If it were, the Princess Royal would have been in jail a long time ago.)
 
Has anyone considered the possibility that the girls might think that if they're going to be labelled as "bad" and condemned, that they may as well go ahead and earn that label?

And a lot of things they're condemned for aren't bad things. It's no crime to weigh more than Callista Flockhart or to have problems creating a becoming look for yourself. (If it were, the Princess Royal would have been in jail a long time ago.)
Or maybe they are using Mummy as a role model??
WWMD??:D
 
I wonder why the difference between the sites, lets hope William and Harry hurry up, marry and have children. Can you imagine the work for the mods if either girl was made a CoS?:ohmy:

I think the difference is that it's automatic for the next four in the line of succession to be Counsellors of State but the consort (and in the present reign, the Queen Mother) has to be added specifically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom