Duties for Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie?

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The figures being quoted are just for Andrew, as you will have seen if you read the articles, by his own admission 500,000GBP this year.

.

No the quotes are not just for Andrew, using The Independent links you provided the quote was

This makes it easy for critics to question whether the £500,000 bill that the taxpayer will have to foot for his UKTI work this year is value for money. "In terms of the return on investment to the UK, bearing in mind I am part of a number of people, I would suggest that £500,000 is cheap at the price," he says.

So it still refers to a 'team' not him individually. I still don't know where the 500,000 pounds comes from as it's not on the UK Trade and Investment audit which is online https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukt...pdf?cid=407359

500,000 pounds is actually not a huge expense when you compare the 45.5 million pounds for the trade shows, publicity, publications expenses that the UKTI paid out. ( I added a few amounts together) Also directors' salaries, money paid out to consultants, lets just say huge amounts of money are spent from the tax payer. Therefore all of which can be questioned as to are they value for money.

Also on the audit is this statement regarding Andrew's expenses

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']UKTI meets part of the Duke of York’s overseas expenses.[/font]

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Why will she have to do a round of royal engagements, what if nobody is interested enough to invite her? What if 10 years down the line, she decides that she has no interest in doing anything for Uncle Charles? Will they then repay us? She hasn't exactly been honing her skills by sitting in on two short meetings iMO.

Skydragon, come on... We can't look into the future. I as well have my serious doubts about that young lady from the way she is presented in the media so far (well, the media can only present what is there... and so far there is nothing but annoying infos.).

Plus that golf tournament in Abu Dhabi is speaking for itself. But still, give the girl a chance. This time at least she did something a bit positive for her future. And we won't know if there isn't another princess Alexandra in the making...

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

So it still refers to a 'team' not him individually. I still don't know where the 500,000 pounds comes from as it's not on the UK Trade and Investment audit which is online https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukt...pdf?cid=407359

We will have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of this - "the £500,000 bill that the taxpayer will have to foot for his UKTI work this year is value for money. "In terms of the return on investment to the UK, bearing in mind I am part of a number of people, I would suggest that £500,000 is cheap at the price," he says". - IF the £500,000 was for the team, it would say 'the UKTI work'.

£17.6 million (£15.9 million) was spent on funding customer-facing activity (International Trade Teams) delivering international trade support in the English regions. The budget for the year was £17.1 million. By utilising some of the savings from other programmes, it was possible to strengthen the regional customer-facing teams, who support business by advising
how trading internationally could help grow their business;

• £11.8 million (£13.1 million) was spent on sector specific export promotional activities in markets and sectors with strong potential for British business.

That is the cost of the teams, Andrew expenses are not shown, none of the expenses are.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Skydragon, come on... We can't look into the future. I as well have my serious doubts about that young lady from the way she is presented in the media so far (well, the media can only present what is there... and so far there is nothing but annoying infos.).

Plus that golf tournament in Abu Dhabi is speaking for itself. But still, give the girl a chance. This time at least she did something a bit positive for her future. And we won't know if there isn't another princess Alexandra in the making...

You are quite right, we can't look into the future, , but there is a very serious issue at stake here, one of trust. Andrew is showing that he has very little regard for the taxpayers of the UK. Most people if criticised for a certain type of behaviour, will try their utmost not to be seen doing the same thing again. Andrew certainly gives the appearance of a spoilt brat, doing what he wants and s*d what anyone thinks. In a house of cards, it only takes one to cause the pack to tumble. By taking Beatrice with him on this jolly, that just happens to include his favourite pastime, he is not showing her a work ethic but how easy it is to con the British public.

Most youngsters do something with their gap year, not hang out with mummy or daddy!

[Incas]

A lot of business are done on the golf course. On many occasions, business negotiations are down to personality and relationships. It may seems all play and games, but depend on the others present on the golf course, there may be a lot of informal socializing involved.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

You are quite right, we can't look into the future, , but there is a very serious issue at stake here, one of trust. Andrew is showing that he has very little regard for the taxpayers of the UK. Most people if criticised for a certain type of behaviour, will try their utmost not to be seen doing the same thing again. Andrew certainly gives the appearance of a spoilt brat, doing what he wants and s*d what anyone thinks. In a house of cards, it only takes one to cause the pack to tumble. By taking Beatrice with him on this jolly, that just happens to include his favourite pastime, he is not showing her a work ethic but how easy it is to con the British public.

Most youngsters do something with their gap year, not hang out with mummy or daddy!

Skydragon, I think you're contradicting yourself here. In previous posts you have stated that Andrew can not behave like other businessmen (who tend to make biz deals on the golf course, etc.) 'cuz he's a member of the RF and so forth and so on. You've said the same thing about the York girls - they are held to a higher standard because of who they are and the taxpayers who foot the bill for many of the priviledges they enjoy. Yet in the above statement, you're criticizing Beatrice for not doing what other kids her age do.

So which is it? Should the royals behave like the rest of us or should they not. Unfort. it seems they're pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't. I wouldn't want to be in that prediciment.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Bella

Skydragon, I think you're contradicting yourself here. In previous posts you have stated that Andrew can not behave like other businessmen (who tend to make biz deals on the golf course, etc.) 'cuz he's a member of the RF and so forth and so on. You've said the same thing about the York girls - they are held to a higher standard because of who they are and the taxpayers who foot the bill for many of the priviledges they enjoy. Yet in the above statement, you're criticizing Beatrice for not doing what other kids her age do.

So which is it? Should the royals behave like the rest of us or should they not. Unfort. it seems they're pretty much damned if they do and damned if they don't. I wouldn't want to be in that prediciment.

I don't feel it is a contradiction at all.

I was highlighting the fact that most girls of Beatrices' age are out and about on their own, royal or not. It is unusual for a girl of 19 to 'hang out' with mummy or daddy, in or out of royal circles.

Andrew can make as many deals as he wants, wherever he wants, but it seems highly suspicious that of the many overseas trips arranged by the UKTI department, he only appears to attend those that specifically include a golf tournament.

[ysbel]

I don't think the taxpayer argument is valid against Andrew and here's why.

Andrew doesn't get paid from the Civil List, he gets paid by the Queen. His salary and business expense for his job as Special Representative gets paid by the UK Trade & Investment Board that sponsors the initiative. The UK Trade & Investment Board is funded by the government but manned by personnel whose head was chosen by an elected official and therefore the head of the board is not accountable to the taxpayer. Rather the elected official that put him in place is accountable to the taxpayer for the Board's spending. This is an important distinction. In government, even in the US, an appointed official is not accountable to the taxpayer but an elected official is.

So ultimately Andrew is accountable to the Queen for the money she gives to him which is personal between mother and son and none of our business and he's accountable to the UK Trade & Investment Board for the salary and perks he receives through his position but there are very few statements in the public press about how well he performs his role as the Special Representative, there are only complaints on how much money he is spending. In fact I daresay that most people here really have no understanding what the purposes, goals, and strategies the UK Trade and Investment Board has put in place for its objectives. We have no knowledge of the Board's budget for Andrew's position and how well they think he is meeting their goals. Without knowledge of the Board's goals and strategies for meeting them, there is no way for us to judge whether Andrew is fulfilling his responsibilities there and whether the cost is worthwhile.

A British taxpayer could conceivably see no benefit in the Board's mission and say that its all a waste of taxpayer money and campaign their elected officials to cut funding for the Board. That would be an effective use of the voice of the people. From most people's point of view, I think that most people can have an opinion whether they think spending money on the Board's purposes of promoting British industry abroad is worthwhile but I would hazard a guess that the average British taxpayer does not know enough about the Board's budget and individual objectives to judge whether too much is being spent on one person's position even if it is a royal such as Andrew. In that case, the taxpayer is micromanaging the Board's governing by critiquing expenses for one official even if it is a royal. The taxpayer can question the Board as to an individual's expense but as I said Andrew's expenses and perks seem to fall in line with the business people he is meeting with and whose businesses he has been tasked to support. So one cannot point to a golf trip in Abu Dhabi or wherever Andrew is doing business as the Special Representative and use that as conclusive evidence that Andrew is wasting taxpayer money.

The Board obviously thought the position was necessary for their goals of promoting British commerce internationally and they obviously had a budget for salaries and expenses, however, this information is generally not as accessible to the public as info on the voting records of elected officials. This is pretty standard for appointed officials, not just royals. They are not directly accountable to the taxpayer and therefore the way their jobs operate, its harder for the taxpayer to judge whether they are earning their keep. That's why we have elected officials who appoint government officials in these positions.

The board has had Special Representatives before Andrew and they will have Special Representatives after Andrew. They are not just making accomodations for Andrew.

I find that with Andrew's financial situation the taxpayer argument is misleading. Conversely, if he were elected he'd be more accountable to the public but that is the reason that BeatrixFan is in favor of a republic.

It seems that if one is interested in defining the Royal family as line items on your tax expense report, even when they are not, then the country needs an elected head of state who one can vote in and out of office like you do the PM. Electing a public official is how you get line item control over a government employee's expenses.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Andrew doesn't get paid from the Civil List, he gets paid by the Queen. His salary and business expense for his job as Special Representative gets paid by the UK Trade & Investment Board that sponsors the initiative. The UK Trade & Investment Board is funded by the government

I cut you short! The UKTI is financed by the taxpayer, no matter who is at the helm. HM receives money from the civil list, as does Philip and as such if HM chooses to give her son pocket money from the civil list allowance it is indeed up to her, but lets hope she doesn't request an increase. Employees of UKTI are classed as civil servants, the UKTI is a government department, exactly the same as 'work and pensions'. Therefore he is answerable, ultimately to the UK taxpayer.

If Andrew wants to be seen as a businessman, then let him get a 'proper' job with a company paying his salary, where they will apparently encourage his playing golf to promote business. But my argument remains, of the engagements Andrew takes up as a representative of UKTI, how many are because there is a golf tournament and how many does he turn down because there is no tournament?

None of this alters the fact, that in my and many others opinions, the 'in training' tag was applied to Beatrices holiday with daddy, to try to calm the outrage expressed for the UK people, in the UK press.

[Elspeth]

I think part of this has to do with a misunderstanding of who's being paid by whom. Many people still seem to believe that the Queen's immediate family is still paid for by the Civil List and that it was just the Gloucesters and Kents who were dropped. They therefore think that, since the Civil List is government money (and most people don't understand the business about the income from the Crown Estates being surrendered in exchange for govermnent income), they're entitled as taxpayers to have a say in how royal family members conduct their public lives.

Even people who understand that the senior royals apart from the Queen and Prince Philip are no longer funded frm the Civil List seem to have a hard time letting go of the "we as taxpayers have a right to demand that they behave in a certain way" argument. People were very keen to see the Civil List shrunk and all these "freeloaders" (particularly Andrew, Fergie, and Edward) dropped, but it does mean that they have less right to demand, as outraged taxpayers, that these royals behave in specific ways. It's certainly true that most of us don't want to see the Queen's immediate family take advantage of their privileged positions and shirk the accompanying responsibilities, but that's our opinion as concerned citizens who don't wish to see our monarchy being debased by the antics of some of its members who should (but apparently don't) know better. It's a different matter from that of royals wasting taxpayers' money, since they aren't paid by taxpayers' money any more.

I don't think anyone can fault the Queen and Prince Philip for the way they behave in their public lives, and they're the only two Civil List recipients since the death of the Queen Mother.

[Skydragon]

Exactly, but I am not complaining about a 'civil list' payment to or for Andrew, but because the UKTI is a government department, funded by the taxpayer.

If he has the position because he is a 'royal', then he must be sure to show that not only is he worth our payment to him, but that he is not abusing his position and only choosing the trips that include a tournament.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

If he has the position because he is a 'royal', then he must be sure to show that not only is he worth our payment to him, but that he is not abusing his position and only choosing the trips that include a tournament.

I'm not interested enough to follow Andrew's trips but I see how well received the trips of Prince Joachim of Denmark or of the Crown Prince/ss of Belgium were when they did a tour organized by the trade board of their respective country. Plus I once was a guest at a Munich dinner for Haakon of Norway where they promoted Norwegian Salmon and other foods from Norway - unfortunately Mette-Marit had agreed to an interview before the trip to Germany where the German TV-team burned her with their lights, so she couldn't come! To be honest, yes, I wrote a bit about Norwegian foods afterwards, so I guess they got from me what they wanted.

So I don't see at the moment what's the problem with Andrew when it comes to his trips. He seems to be well received by his hosts, like any good PR-person should be. Is he not successful enough in promoting the products? Or do you think the events are arranged too much for his fun and less for the promotion of British goods?

Hm... I know to well how boring these kinds of promotional events are, so I skip most invitations. They really have to bring in Royalty or excellent winemakers to tempt me... And that's how it is here in Munich - a lot of collegues think along a similar line. Maybe that's a reason why the trade board is happy to have Andrew and maybe later Beatrice?

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I don't feel it is a contradiction at all.

I was highlighting the fact that most girls of Beatrices' age are out and about on their own, royal or not. It is unusual for a girl of 19 to 'hang out' with mummy or daddy, in or out of royal circles.

Andrew can make as many deals as he wants, wherever he wants, but it seems highly suspicious that of the many overseas trips arranged by the UKTI department, he only appears to attend those that specifically include a golf tournament.

Well, I've been saying that Sarah "hangs out" far too often w her daughters and I agree that's not normal for anyone. However, I don't consider Pss B accompanying her father on a biz trip hanging out. At least that's never how I looked at it when I'd accompany my parents on business trips.

[jcbcode99]

I'm with Skydragon--he really does seem to only pick business meetings and locations where he can golf--I understand that we all need to unwind, but his habits are becoming noticible and can call into question his motives for choosing where he goes.....
As for Bea--I like it that she accompanied her father on this trip. We've been complaining that she has no duties--perhaps her father suggested she come with him to see what he does rather than partying. I'd say as a father he may have just wanted her where he could keep an eye on her and perhaps the Queen suggested it as well, to help put her granddaughter on a track towards more responsible behavior??