The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/duties-and-roles-of-princesses-beatrice-and-eugenie-10023.html)

HighGoalHighDreams 06-19-2006 08:42 PM

Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie
 
I started a new thread because this is Beatrice and Eugenie, and it would be like having the same conversation twice on two threads. Moderators, I do apologise for the trouble if this isn't appropriate. :o

Sarah has said in the interview for the girls for Ladies' Home Journal: 'My girls are really launching into society this year' and that is why they did the interview (although it doesn't have too much information for that purpose and seems a bit odd when Bea has already done Tatler, but that's just my input). :)This has been discussed a few times here before, so I thought maybe your opinions could be stated here, and also this could possibly be a kind of new/ pictures thread for the two of them together 'launching into society' this year. :) (Perhaps soon the title could be changed to reflect that?)

Well, as far as that goes, we have Eugenie's apperance at a fashion show this March
Beatrice has attended public events (Queen's Thanksgiving Service, Trooping the Colour, The Queen's Cup, and the Garter Caremony) for the last four days in a row. I normally wouldn't read too much into this, but since it has been 'made official', it looks like this is a real launch for them.

Enjoy the thread!

kaydura0717 06-19-2006 08:45 PM

Does this mean they are going to have a debutante ball?

HighGoalHighDreams 06-19-2006 08:50 PM

I personally find that unlikely. However, Sarah did mention that Bea's birthday party will be the theme we expected, but also that it will be masked.

kaydura0717 06-19-2006 08:52 PM

So its a masqerade ball type of party.

princess olga 06-19-2006 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams
I started a new thread because this is Beatrice and Eugenie, and it would be like having the same conversation twice on two threads. Moderators, I do apologise for the trouble if this isn't appropriate. :o

Sarah has said in the interview for the girls for Ladies' Home Journal: 'My girls are really launching into society this year' and that is why they did the interview

You sure you want my opinion? ;)

Because it sure seems that I've been wrong all along about Sarah of York. I thought she was a modern woman, but it turns out I've been terribly wrong.

Of course, I know her wedding vows in 1986 included the line that she vowed to love and OBEY her new husband (a thing the clever Diana never promised in front of the altar!), which I at the time already thought a huge disappointment and out of character.

But ever since her divorce and her pro-active approach to dealing with past demons, I had thought Sarah had learned a lesson and had become a thoroughly modern woman after all. One who even brings home her own bacon, as the Texans would say.
She certainly doesn't need a man any longer to gain financial security (although admittedly, close ties to her Majesty Elizabeth Reine don't hurt Sarah's bank account), so why is she going out of her way to make sure her daughters "will be launched into society", an outdated practice geared to help young elitist ladies find a husband of their own class to depend on??

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, and maybe it's just another of Sarah's PR ploys, concocted to keep herself in the news, at the expense of her daughters, no less.

Whatever the case, she's outing herself as either terribly old fashioned and elitist, what with these 'coming out to society' events are meant to feed the status quo to the next generation, as the message may as well read, "please, kids, only date your own kind", or it's a desperate trick to keep those attention deficit disorder-suffering souls Stateside, informed of her existence. Or else she's just not thought this through and is not the quirky independent thinker I hoped she was.

Oppie 06-20-2006 09:58 AM

Quote:

Of course, I know her wedding vows in 1986 included the line that she vowed to love and OBEY her new husband (a thing the clever Diana never promised in front of the altar!), which I at the time already thought a huge disappointment and out of character.
She promised to obey him twice durning the vows.

Someone mentioned (could have been another board) that they wished that Princess Alexandra would start mentoring them. I agree with that line of thinking, they need to (if they are finished with school) get into the royal thing and not become celebrity a-listers or jet setters. As much as some people complain about the Wales princes not taking on royal events at least they have done a more or less good job at keeping themselves occupied. The York Princesses are going to have to do the same thing. They are been a few pictures of Princess Beatrice with her grandmother watching semi-offical events at Balmoral so they seem to be on the right track.

Still I wouldn't put much into this party, I don't think it will have an impact on there social standings. It will be like Prince William's except with all those 8's

HighGoalHighDreams 06-20-2006 10:40 AM

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to link the party to the social standing. When I mentioned the party, it was just in response to Kay's question and because I hadn't read that before, I wanted to share. It still goes, though, that Sarah has plans for them to launch into society this year. The party just happens to coincide and was brought up. Hope there wasn't any confusion. :)

Ariel 06-20-2006 10:52 AM

I dont know why launching them together as Beatrice is 18 and her sister is younger. So probably it is better to do it separetly.

ysbel 06-20-2006 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess olga
Whatever the case, she's outing herself as either terribly old fashioned and elitist, what with these 'coming out to society' events are meant to feed the status quo to the next generation, as the message may as well read, "please, kids, only date your own kind", or it's a desperate trick to keep those attention deficit disorder-suffering souls Stateside, informed of her existence. Or else she's just not thought this through and is not the quirky independent thinker I hoped she was.

Don't worry, princess olga, I think Sarah has enough quirkiness left to satisfy fans of her off-beat character. :)

People don't fall into easy categories of modern or old-fashioned. Most people don't reject everything their background taught them but pick and choose what from their childhood they want to keep into adulthood. Sarah still comes from an aristocratic background where coming out has some importance. I doubt if Sarah has read into it as much as you have.

Bella 06-20-2006 03:05 PM

I don't think Pss. Beatrice's party is necessarily a debut into society. I think it's more of a coming of age party, which is rather different. Alot of girls here in the US have Sweet 16 parties and it's more of a coming of age party than anything else. The old debutante extravaganzas include all sorts of engagements prior to the actual party; luncheons, teas, soirees, various dances/catillions. I know this up close and personal 'cuz my mother was a deb and trust me, it's not a fun thing (according to her). I don't think the York girls are going through all of that. Wm. and Harry both had coming of age parties, I believe.

HighGoalHighDreams 06-20-2006 03:09 PM

Harry actually did not have a coming of age party, but he may have a 21st even though that date is past.

I think the talk about the party confused a lot of people. Her party is nothing but a party for her 18th. It has nothing to do with what Sarah called launching the girls into society this season. I don't think Sarah meant that comment in the 'deb' way. I believe she meant it to mean what people here have mentioned a few times on the individual threads- they will be seen more in public, attending more royal events, things like that. I didn't see any indication that Sarah meant to have them anything like debs, but more 'coming out' (a phrase she didn't use) as royals.

princess olga 06-22-2006 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Don't worry, princess olga, I think Sarah has enough quirkiness left to satisfy fans of her off-beat character. :)

People don't fall into easy categories of modern or old-fashioned. Most people don't reject everything their background taught them but pick and choose what from their childhood they want to keep into adulthood. Sarah still comes from an aristocratic background where coming out has some importance. I doubt if Sarah has read into it as much as you have.

Very wise comment, indeed, your point is well taken: People never are one thing or another, why should Sarah!

That said, I was in the supermarket today and read the magazine interview there (no, didn't purchase it--sorry but I dont' want to be caught dead with something named 'ladies home journal') and they even mention the dichotomy between the interest for Sarah the ex royal and Sarah, the person. Later in the interview she is all talking (read: bragging) about how down to earth and normal her daughters are, but then in the next sentence (which, granted, could be taken out of context by the magazine) she's announcing how they're going to be "launched into society" this year. It sounds a bit, well, messed up in a way, and the magazine even hints at that.

I guess it isn't easy coming to terms with an elite background and leveraging it for publicity, while at the same time, trying to be down to earth.

One more thing: Sarah and her daughters grace the cover of that magazine, a nationally syndicated publication in the entire U.S. Call me judgmental, but having my sixteen year old daughter in pumps all pimped out on the cover of a magazine of a country that has nothing whatsoever to do with your own, what is the point of that?! Call me old fashioned, if I had kids, I wouldn't want my sixteen year old on the cover of a celebrity hungry nation for no purpose whatsoever.

All the same, please don't take my comments to mean I don't like Sarah. I actually do, for a bunch of reasons, but one is that she was about the only Windsor at Diana's funeral who looked like she'd just lost a beloved relative--the rest of the Windsor 'gang' looked unaffected, as if they were attending a memorial service for WW1 vets or something. But not Sarah, the loss of a dear one was etched that day in her face. I realized seeing that footage that Sarah probably is a "what you see is what you get" kind of person, which for a public figure is quite attractive imo.

HighGoalHighDreams 06-22-2006 11:29 AM

"sixteen year old daughter in pumps all pimped out on the cover of a magazine of a country that has nothing whatsoever to do with your own"

I don't think that's a fair description. I didn't think they looked good, but not because it was inappropriate. Their make-up- although I didn't like it- was not inappropriate, in my opinion, although of course others may differ. Also, 'the magazine of a country that has nothing.... to do with your own' I think was probably choosen because she's wanting them to be seen- how can I say it?- not as New Yorkers but as people spending more time here- they will be living here this summer. (Now, whether it was appropriate to put more attention on them before they move to NY is a seperate issue, but I don't have an iota of doubt that they agree to this and were not pushed. We have no reason to think otherwise.)

What I disagreed with was her comment about- I don't have the magazine in front of me- in context to coming out in society, how she choose to do so by putting them on the cover of LHJ. Ummm... I bit too late to 'bring them out' (my words) by putting them on a magazine cover! She gets away with billing so many things as first-time treasures, and I think she has the right heart, but I don't know how she gets away with doing it SO many times!

ysbel 06-22-2006 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess olga
That said, I was in the supermarket today and read the magazine interview there (no, didn't purchase it--sorry but I dont' want to be caught dead with something named 'ladies home journal') and they even mention the dichotomy between the interest for Sarah the ex royal and Sarah, the person. Later in the interview she is all talking (read: bragging) about how down to earth and normal her daughters are, but then in the next sentence (which, granted, could be taken out of context by the magazine) she's announcing how they're going to be "launched into society" this year. It sounds a bit, well, messed up in a way, and the magazine even hints at that.

I guess it isn't easy coming to terms with an elite background and leveraging it for publicity, while at the same time, trying to be down to earth.

Actually the Ladies' Home Journal is not that bad, princess olga. :) I haven't read it in awhile but the journalists there usually do their homework before the interview. I got most if not all of my royal knowledge in the 70s from Ladies' Home Journal and McCalls.

I think for someone from Sarah's background, down to earth means something completely different than for someone from a working class background. She is probably very down to earth (some would say too much) compared to other ladies with the same background.

I agree with you that Sarah is very much a 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' person and I admire her honesty. Though some of her actions do make me cringe; if we were friends, I'd just have to remember not to hang out with her when I wanted to present a more dignified character. ;) :D

Duchess 06-25-2006 10:01 AM

i have to agree with the pumps and pimped out omment. looking at the photo my first thought was...they look so cheap. it's always so disappointing to see photos of them, even ones at official events as they look like they've made little to no effort to look nice. both girls look like they're trying to dress like adults but are sorely missing the mark.

Zonk 06-25-2006 10:21 AM

Did Sarah and the girls actually sit down for the photographer specifically for the cover of LHJ? How do we know that the magazine didn't purchase the picture specifically for the cover?

I only ask ask cause a while back Catherine Zeta Jones appeared on the cover of US Glamour and it read like she actually sat for a interview with the magazine. Turns out..they used a picture they purchased and cut and paste comments that she made in other magazines. She was furious!

kelly9480 06-25-2006 12:52 PM

Sarah has done LHJ spreads before, so I think she has some sort of relationship with the mag. They've had several complimentary articles and interviews with her, and she's always looked lovely in their photos, so I don't think the mag needed to resort to what Glamour did.

diamondBrg 01-03-2008 11:10 AM

Duties for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie
 
It was referenced on another thread that Andrew's children receive taxpayer money to support them, how is that so and from what source please?

I know that they are 5th and 6th in line of succession so they receive Royal protection, but that really isn't their choice is it?

I have read on other threads where people feel free to be critical because they are not working real jobs? Why should they, if their parents don't think it is necessary and I KNOW that Sarah, Duchess of York is independently wealthy and that wealth has NOTHING to do with the British taxpayer?

BeatrixFan 01-03-2008 11:15 AM

You seem to think that being born into the Royal Family comes with no responsibilities and thats simply not the case these days. British people expect to see the Royal Family working because although we're told that only the Queen gets money from the civil list, there's no doubt at all that everything Beatrice and Eugenie have - we've paid for. Though they recieve no money directly, their father has because he carries out Royal duties and so essentially, we're paying for them. The Duchess of York may very well pay for them to party etc but as Princesses of the UK, we actually expect them to follow their Aunty Anne's lead and so something worthwhile to legitimise the luxury they live in. They don't appear to be doing anything at all worthwhile with their lives and though they didn't choose to be born into the Royal Family, the homeless didn't choose to be homeless but they deal with their station in life.

norwegianne 01-03-2008 12:19 PM

Just a couple of quick thoughts.

I think that, for young royals in general, while they are at school and university, they're getting educated about issues, which is better for both them, and us, in the long run. If I was spearheading an organization which had a royal as a patron, I would much prefer them to be a bit grown up and have a basic knowledge of the organization and why it does what it does in the world, rather to have teenagers who haven't finished their education, and who, to the press, appears to be more interested in partying than doing something worthwhile connected to the organization.

After university, you either expect them to step up with the royal duties, get married (and move out of the limelight) or get a job - or a combination thereof.

Beatrice and Eugenie's role in the royal family firm might be big or small, depending on how the family sets out to play it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises