I think if the royal family is to be at all significant, the members who still count as royal - who have HRHs - should be held to a higher standard of accountability. A lot of people don't realise that Prince Michael doesn't do royal duties and has never been paid from the Civil List, and they don't like his perceived habits of getting company directorships and adting as spokesman for commercial concerns. It's seen as being OK for David Linley to have a normal job because he hasn't got a royal title and isn't expected to do royal duties. But someone like Prince Michael is in a rather ambiguous position, and the nuances of that position are somewhat lost on people who aren't royal watchers.
The same is likely to happen to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie if they aren't careful. Lady Louise might avoid the problem because of not being styled with an HRH, but as long as those two young ladies are Princesses and Royal Highnesses, they ought to be behaving as such. Otherwise it becomes relevant to ask why the HRH and the Succession aren't limited much more stringently like they are in some other monarchies, to include only the monarch and the immediate family.
If Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor wanted to go out partying with Sarah every week and live in New York most of the time, fair enough. HRH Princess Beatrice owes her country a bit more than that if her HRH is anything other than three irrelevant letters.
|