The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #941  
Old 07-28-2012, 11:41 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
But they are just granddaughters of the queen who have no official profile. So why would somebody try to attack them out of political reasons? On the contrary, being considered private citizens makes their life much easier. And face it: they do not venture out of well-controlled areas at night. Beatrice lives within St. James' palace and Eugenie has her room in her father's apartment at BP AFAIK, so it's not as if they travelled dangerously. They call a taxi to a venue where the entrance is guarded and the taxi enters the respective palace grounds to allow them out at another guarded door.

Okay, so they can't use the tube to go where they want in London, they either call for a taxi or drive in their own cars. There should not be much risk included for them. If there was any real risk, they would get back their protection immediately.
Quick response cos we're off topic but "just" grandchildren of HQM is close enough; and the kidnap threat is always there. I just think (and I know it will never happen) that control of the paps is required.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #942  
Old 07-28-2012, 01:21 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
This looks like nonsense to me. A few points:
1. no specifics on when or where this conversation took place
2. Mentions a "senior figure" - means nothing. Senior in what capacity? Too vague to take seriously
3. Friend of Prince Andrew says .......... who exactly?
4. "Speed at which Charles has acted". I think the slimmed down aspect has been know for some time. I've not been on the Forums long but a lot of you in here have talked about it for quite a while.
5. "It's alright for Charles...endless bodyguards etc". Of course it is - he's the heir to the throne.
6.The inference that Charles is leading this without the agreement of HMQ is false, IMO

And so on and so on. I think this is rubbish made up by Richard Kay who still resents he no longer has an inside track to the Royal Family. He doesn't like Charles or Camilla and this is his way of getting at them without making a direct attack. Using other members of the royal family as cover is typical.

Prince Andrew has stated publically that his daughters do not intend to carry out royal duties.

As for Edward, he and his wife are expected to carry on as they are but their children will lead non-royal lives.

Just an additional point on security. Beatrice and Eugenie are tracked on a daily basis by the paps. Follow freelance royal photographers and you will find the princesses. This makes them very easy targets and therefore there is a degree of risk.
I humbly disagree. Firstly, this story isn't new exactly. We've known for some time that Andrew has a problem with the way his daughters are being positioned within the firm (outside of it) and during the Jubilee we saw stories similar to this one. Firstly, Andrew has to accept this: Beatrice and Eugenie are never going to have the popularity that Charles' children have. They have their parents reputation against them, they haven't exactly endeared themselves to the public in any major way and they're surplus to requirements. They were surplus before William got married, they're certainly expendable now. Yes they have titles and money but that's all they are. They're daughters of a second son, too far down in the line of succession to make a difference. Now, Andrew needs to accept this for his own peace of mind but also for the good of his daughters. To lie to them and pretend they're going to shine in any real public role is pure fantasy. They aren't needed. It's harsh but there it is.

What the girls need to be doing is finding a role they can play, finding a good job, supporting the odd charity here and there, enjoying their time at public events that do include them. Which they seem to be doing, it's the Duke of York who has the gripe. The whole fuss about their security arrangements was ridiculous and still is. Nobody gives a fluff about the girls to be brutally honest. Since Kate married into the family and the Queen took the firm to a new scaled down model, the girls aren't in the firing line anymore. The press want William and Kate, they want Harry and they even want more of Charles and Camilla these days. The only time they cover Beatrice and Eugenie is when Sarah causes another scandal, Andrew kicks off about his girls being mistreated or when they're seen to be wasting public money.

Whether this scaling down has happened because of Charles' insistence or the Queen's good sense, it's happened and will only continue. In time, Harry's children would face the same when William became King. As I said before, it's evolution of a public institution to survive. I'm not saying every word in that article is true but it's something we're aware of and something Andrew needs to control. He needs to take a leaf out of Princess Anne's books - her children are national treasures, especially Zara. They've done something meaningful and realistic with their lives. Beatrice and Eugenie will have to do the same, King Charles or no King Charles.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #943  
Old 07-28-2012, 01:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Some City, United States
Posts: 211
Whether the story is true or not, I hate to see the sins of the father visited upon the sons, or daughters as it may be. I don't see reports of either girl whining about this. In fact, both seem to be carrying on with their lives. Both attended university, Beatrice takes a job this fall.

Once Will and Kate have children, and Harry marries and has kids (or IF that all comes to pass), Eugenie and Beatrice will be like Princess Margaret's children. I don't hear of paps following them around, and I think they can lead fairly normal lives. I think Beatrice and Eugenie's lives will take this course eventually - productive adults with fairly normal lives who will be in the public eye from time to time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #944  
Old 07-28-2012, 01:32 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
That's my hope too Princess Peach. I think this is what Andrew and Sarah fail to realise, their mistakes over the years are being held against the girls which is unfair of course but it's the way the press works and therefore the way the majority of Joe public come to reach their opinion of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #945  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:21 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Andrew has to know he's simply on the wrong side of this argument, surely? He has to recognise that in the 21st Century, there is just no appetite among the British people for an extended working royal family. It's a sad reality that as the years go, Andrew's position in the family becomes weaker and smaller, a situation that Harry will face in a few decades' time if the Cambridges have children. The fact that Beatrice and Eugenie are 'blood princesses' doesn't have the same cache that is used to.

If this article is in any way accurate, the Queen needs to have words with Andrew and Edward, and point out the reality that they face, and be clear that she expects them to support Charles and to stop what appears to be some pretty crude briefing against him to journalists who are notorious for their anti-Charles bias. All this does is make Andrew, and Edward to a lesser extent, look like they're living in dreamland, not Britain in 2012.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #946  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:26 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,658
Beatrixfan and princesspeach. I dont think we are disagreeing.

My issue is really with the tone of Richard Kay's piece which is divisive as usual. I think that a smaller royal family is necessary but I also think that this would have been discussed in an inclusive way within the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew has been quoted directly as saying that his daughters are not wanting to take on a full royal role. So that's one of the reasons I think this DM piece is made up.

Of course the paps follow the Princesses - that's how we get the pix. But maybe I'm being too cautious and you are right. I hope so.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #947  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:29 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,869
Charles is a clever man and completely right. The future of the monarchy will only consist of himself, Camilla, the Cambridges and their children. Harry (and his family) will fade into the background as soon as the Cambridge children are grown, like it happens today with Andrew and his children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #948  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:38 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Personally, I think Andrew has had the look of a very unhappy man for some time now. He finds himself, in no small part because of his own misjudgements, no longer holding the role that he seemed to enjoy (trade envoy). He's unmarried, his daughters have graduated and look to be heading for largely private lives, and his own position within the RF faces significant downgrades, particularly when William and Kate have children and start to undertake full-time roles as working royals. On top of all this, he gets tremendously bad press and his reputation is pretty much in tatters. Whether that's fair or unfair can be debated, but we are where we are.

He seems to want to see his daughters play a larger role within the RF than is on the cards. We've heard several times that he's unhappy with the much reduced security arrangements for the girls and their playing a bigger role would ensure that they have more security. Unfortunately, it's obvious that it's not going to happen and he needs to come to terms with what his life is now, or shape a new role for himself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #949  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:39 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Beatrixfan and princesspeach. I dont think we are disagreeing.

My issue is really with the tone of Richard Kay's piece which is divisive as usual. I think that a smaller royal family is necessary but I also think that this would have been discussed in an inclusive way within the Royal Family.

Prince Andrew has been quoted directly as saying that his daughters are not wanting to take on a full royal role. So that's one of the reasons I think this DM piece is made up.

Of course the paps follow the Princesses - that's how we get the pix. But maybe I'm being too cautious and you are right. I hope so.
You're absolutely right, Kay is a first class busy body. I read an article he wrote some time ago about a former employer, all of which was fantasy. So he isn't 100% reliable but other stories make me think there's some truth in this. You're also right when you say the paps follow the Princesses. I think that's a government matter which is long overdue, the protection of individuals from the press - which I dare say we're going to see after the Levenson Enquiry. I think Princess Peach (fantastic username!) has it right when she compares Beatrice and Eugenie to Princess Margaret's children. I think the best course of action for them would be to drop their titles when they marry and get on with their lives. I'm fond of Beatrice and Eugenie, Beatrice especially who seems a very lovely young woman, but I'm not so fond of Andrew and Sarah using them and I think that's where the crux of this issue lies.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #950  
Old 07-28-2012, 03:17 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 868
It is hard to take this article seriously because Richard Kay would have us believe that Prince Charles took advantage of Prince Philip's absence to limit the members of the royal family on the balcony during the Jubilee fly over. In fact, the announcement was made a few weeks ahead of time and was discussed on this forum.

That said, I do believe that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice need security because they are at risk because of their relationship with the Queen. On the other hand, should the taxpayers pay for security for anyone who is either related to or is close friends with the Queen? It is a hard one. I am sure that the Queen and her advisers have taken everything into consideration and are doing the best they can.

It is also plausible that Prince Andrew and Prince Edward feel that their contributions are being diminished, but I can't believe they never thought this day would come. Apparently, Princess Margaret and the Queen's cousins were active royals, but I think that may have been because she only had one sister, and it was a different time. I really don't hear much about their children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #951  
Old 07-28-2012, 03:55 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,193
I don't get it. We don't actually know if Andrew feels this way, if this conversation ever occurred or if Andrew even cares. He's never said so, and like almost everything in royal life we are guessing. If Andrew wishes to fight on behalf of his daughters, who wish to be a true part of the firm then I'm all for it! I see no reason why Beatrice and Eugenie are being pushed out.

Also, we obviously don't know what's true about Charles' scale down wishes, he's hardly released a statement confirming that.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #952  
Old 07-28-2012, 04:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
strange revisions happen

Strange revisions happen. Remember then Prince William of Gloucester was killed in an accident six weeks after his brother's wedding. This made Prince Richard needed in the "firm", and he quit his architect job and went into the full time royal business, with his lovely wife Birgitta. What if William and Kate don't have children, and Harry does not? This would of course devastate the press, but there are other royals there to take over if expectations fail. I would think the Gloucester family would be more popular than Beatrice and Eugenie in taking over as Queen's representatives, but perhaps everyone would be needed in some strange circumstance. The Wessex's are already fully used as royal emissaries by the Queen, and I expect that would continue under King Charles, as Sophie and Edward are reported to be doing a bang up job of attending European and other royal functions--why stop, unless, of course, they get too old to do those things, but look at the Gloucesters, approaching seventy and still representing the Queen--unfamous people, for the most part, but putting shoulder to the wheel.

Things change.
When Beatrice and Eugenie get older who knows what maturity will bring in the way of contributions? Their father has made a royal *** of himself, so one can't expect much there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #953  
Old 07-28-2012, 04:19 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,658
If William and Harry dont have children then its probably Queen Beatrice
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #954  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:02 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I don't get it. We don't actually know if Andrew feels this way, if this conversation ever occurred or if Andrew even cares. He's never said so, and like almost everything in royal life we are guessing. If Andrew wishes to fight on behalf of his daughters, who wish to be a true part of the firm then I'm all for it! I see no reason why Beatrice and Eugenie are being pushed out.

Also, we obviously don't know what's true about Charles' scale down wishes, he's hardly released a statement confirming that.
It's clear that there is an intention within the Monarchy for the institution to be slimmed down. That was overtly shown by the make up of the balcony for the Diamond Jubilee finale. Whether that's coming from the Queen (I think she's as likely as Charles to be involved in an efficiency drive), Charles, or from the 'grey men', we don't know. For all we know, the government have been nudging the Palace into making these sorts of changes.

If William and Harry don't have children, then Beatrice and her children will be next in line. That doesn't mean Beatrice has to be a full-time royal in the meantime, on the miniscule chance of one day possibly having to take the throne. Beatrice and her children are likely to still be close to a King William V, or a King Henry IX (particularly if they have no children); they're likely to be attending Trooping in one way or another as well as the other big state occasions. Just because Beatrice won't be a working royal doesn't mean she stops being a part of the royal family; the link will still be there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #955  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 517
I don't know if I believe the reports that come out every so often about Charles wanting a seriously streamlined monarchy, but if it's true, and if the plan really is to limit the working royal family to Charles and his direct descendants during the next reign, I'm skeptical. Charles has three siblings, all of whom have been very involved in the business of the monarchy from the time they were young. Charles himself only has two children. Charles' two children and spouses can't do the same amount of work that Charles and three siblings and their spouses have taken on. If more peripheral members of the royal family, like Beatrice and Eugenie, aren't going to be encouraged to step up and play a role as working royals then a lot of charities and organizations are going to be out in the cold and disappointed over the next ten or twenty years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #956  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
If William and Harry dont have children then its probably Queen Beatrice
Indeed. Hoever, given how W and C been together for more than a decade, I think we'll be seeing some offspring from them fairly soon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #957  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:12 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
It's clear that there is an intention within the Monarchy for the institution to be slimmed down. That was overtly shown by the make up of the balcony for the Diamond Jubilee finale. Whether that's coming from the Queen (I think she's as likely as Charles to be involved in an efficiency drive), Charles, or from the 'grey men', we don't know. For all we know, the government have been nudging the Palace into making these sorts of changes.
I'd be willing to bet that this has been in the works for a very long time and most likely brainstormed by the Way Ahead committee. Something like slimming down the Firm isn't one person's wishes or what one group thinks is best but something that's been thought about from all angles and is now starting gradually to affect the structure of the Firm.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #958  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:22 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Of course a slimmed-down monarchy will mean fewer public engagements completed overall by the Firm. I do think, however, that on balance that's a price worth paying for demonstrating to the taxpayer that the monarchy represents good value for money. With all due respect to the Gloucesters, the Kents, Princess Alexandra etc. they're pretty much unknown in the UK. The vast majority would have no idea that they even undertake royal engagements at all.

Ultimately it's about setting the monarchy up for the next 20-30 years. I think it's fairly obvious that a leaner, more effective monarchy would garner support from the overwhelming majority of the British people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #959  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:41 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,658
I think that the work of the monarchy will (is) move. The Prince's Trust model has proved highly successful, and this is being followed up by the Royal Foundation. Eventually, perhaps when Charles becomes King, these 2 bodies will come together. The monarchy will assist in raising money for good causes, not just be Patrons as it has in the past. The Queen and those before her did not that except perhaps for a national need such as war bonds.

They will still tour the country to congratulate people on their achievements etc.

I also think that taking 8 weeks off in the summer, forgivable in a jubilee monarch who is in her 80's will not be acceptable in the future. Longer working period for the royals will take up some of the slack of less royals to go round
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #960  
Old 07-28-2012, 05:46 PM
MichelleQ2's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 754
I think Andrew has brought alot of this on himself. My opinion is that Charles is trying to tactfully limit the expense of the monarchy - through attrition, rather than 'firing' family members. i expect after this jubilee year, that the queens cousins (Duke of Kent, Gloucesters, and Pss Alexandra) will gradually begin to reduce their commitments and eventually retire. by all rights they should be able to enjoy their children and grandchildren. There isn't a legacy issue with any of them as none of their children are working members of the firm.

moving to the next generation - Princess Margaret's children are both self sufficient and not an issue. They are family and come out at appropriate family occasions, and when called upon, they do what they can. I think Lady Chatto jumped in a bit to help out in those first years following her mothers and grandmothers passing. That put a strain on the family with many charities losing patrons within a short period of time. I think it was Andrew who said they sat around a card table and tried to figure out who would assume which associations.

Anne has always been one of the hardest working royals and the service to the family firm ends with her - both of her children are sufficient in their own rights. I don't see any reason why Charles would limit her working role in the family.

Edward and Sophie have served an important role in the family as a good solid working couple with young children- prior to Camilla and Kate joining the family, they were the only royal couple of the firm (exc HM and DOE of course). Their young children are not an issue at this time, but i assume they will be strongly encouraged to make their own way. Edward is being groomed to take on more of his fathers responsibilities as the future DOE, so I see Sophie and Edwards contribution continuing on, albeit in a less prominent role - more along the lines of the Gloucesters and Kents.

and then we have Andrew... he has been removed from the official role as trade ambassador because of poor judgements and associations. I still do think he works a lot behind the scenes as he has the relationships. And he was an active supporter of his daughters taking on an official role and his daughters had both expressed a desire to contribute to the firm. (yes I know the recent spin is that they didn't want a royal role, but he fought a long time - even trying to get the girls to accompany him on his jubilee tour to India). I personally I think he was trying to get them some financial security as he had still been put in a position to support their mother at various times. The girls are both at life stages where they are making decisions about their future and that future should involve the private sector and working outside the royal bubble.

Anne, Edward and Sophie have a positive impact and the working contribution of their respective lines will end with them. Andrew has had in recent years a less favorable reputation, and he wants to extend the legacy and expense to his daughters and the next generation. It makes sense that Charles is trying to make a stand at this time. If he doesn't take care of it now - he will have to revisit the same issue in 15 years with Edwards children, and by then William and Harry's families will be established and a clearer vision of the next generation should be in place. I would also not expect for either Beatrice or Eugenie's husbands to be offered a royal title.

within the next year I see the firm:

A Team: HM & DOE
Charles & Camilla
William & Catherine
Harry

B Team: Anne
Edward & Sophie
Andrew (?)

transitioning out: Duke of Kent
Duke/Duchess of Gloucester
Princess Alexandra
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]