Princess Beatrice of York Current Events 12: October 2008-October 2009


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
It looks like she's forgotten part of her skirt again (at Frost's) but the color is lovely on her.
 
Zonk said:
On another note...as it relates to Princess Beatrice and the dorm situation she really can't win. If she stayed with other students (that she really doesn't know or haven't been properly screened) she takes teh chance of them telling and/or selling information about her. On the other hand...the press would start hounding them and doing research into their lives as the students who live with Princess Beatrice..
Click to expand...
She could have got a bedsit if she really couldn't manage the tiny commute. Had she taken the option of renting a small flat, anyone staying with her would have been vetted by security if they were total strangers, although I am sure she could have found 'friends' working in the city to share with her.
 
:previous: Yes, she certainly could have done that...but that "vetting" thing is tricky. Its amazing what security can't find out but the tabloids could. I pity the roommate whose family doesn't have a blemish or at least they think they don't have any skeletons in the closet.. The next thing you know we have a headline...Bea's living with the great great granddaughter of an ex con. Who wants to deal with that?

While I certainly think the housing and redecorating situation could have been handled better....I think the tabloids love picking on the Yorks. I could only imagine the headlines that would have happened if she had lived on campus, the Royal Lodge or anything like that. They would have found something to pick on.
 
iowabelle said:
It looks like she's forgotten part of her skirt again (at Frost's) but the color is lovely on her.
Click to expand...

She's showing us that she doesn't need to walk up and down 60 stairs, her legs are OK

And I must add that she looks very much more like a princess on both her recent outings.
 
Here's an article about Princess Beatrice (in Spanish)

La princesa Beatriz mira al futuro con optimismo

It says "Princess Beatrice looks to her future with optimism". She is at the point where her life is about to take off. It talks about her university studies, her new relationship, and her closeness to her family. During the week, she is staying in an apartment in St. James Palace, the home of Princess Anne, and her apartment is not far from where William and Harry live. On the weekends, she is with her father. Her boyfriend stays at his parents' home in North London, and has been spending more time with her. The article ends by saying that she has lost weight, and talks briefly about criticism surrounding her bathing suit photos from the previous years.
 
Prince Andrew also has an apartment at Buckingham Palace so why can't she stay there with him?
 
angela said:
Prince Andrew also has an apartment at Buckingham Palace so why can't she stay there with him?
Click to expand...

It's not an apartment, Andrew (and Edward and Anne) have rooms at Buckingham Palace. So Andrew has a bedroom and a sitting room with a bathroom attached.
 
Charlotte1 said:
It's not an apartment, Andrew (and Edward and Anne) have rooms at Buckingham Palace. So Andrew has a bedroom and a sitting room with a bathroom attached.
Click to expand...
As far as I know it is a suite, including offices. There are probably a dozen or so that would nor have required the amount of money spent, that would have been suitable. I still find it hard to understand wht the taxpayer has spent £250,000 to £300,000 to save her a commute of an hour and a quarter (by car). Much faster by train of course!
 
Skydragon said:
As far as I know it is a suite, including offices. There are probably a dozen or so that would nor have required the amount of money spent, that would have been suitable. I still find it hard to understand wht the taxpayer has spent £250,000 to £300,000 to save her a commute of an hour and a quarter (by car). Much faster by train of course!
Click to expand...


One question I haven't been able to find an answer to is how much it would have taken to bring this apartment up to scratch for another tenant.

I think that that is pertinent as if the cost would have been similar to bring it up to standard for another tenant like the one who had previously occupied the apartment then the question is irrelevant but if it is considerably more then the questions are reasonable.

As St James' is a very old palace and from what I understand this apartment had had a long term tenant it is reasonable to assume that there would have been some cost to bring it up to the required standard of the early 21st century.
 
Iluvbertie said:
As St James' is a very old palace and from what I understand this apartment had had a long term tenant it is reasonable to assume that there would have been some cost to bring it up to the required standard of the early 21st century.
Click to expand...

....all the while being careful to use appropriate materials and maintain the standards which would no doubt be required when doing up a heritage building like this. You can't just nail some plasterboard over the old cracked walls. Everything has to be carefully done by hand and old styles of cornice, for example, have to be hand moulded from scratch. It can often be far more expensive to renovate such a building than to build a new one.
 
I would have concerns about this apartment being a fire trap, if her only access is up a spiral staircase (of 60 steps). It really doesn't sound very posh.
 
iowabelle said:
I would have concerns about this apartment being a fire trap, if her only access is up a spiral staircase (of 60 steps). It really doesn't sound very posh.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Iluvbertie said:
One question I haven't been able to find an answer to is how much it would have taken to bring this apartment up to scratch for another tenant.

I think that that is pertinent as if the cost would have been similar to bring it up to standard for another tenant like the one who had previously occupied the apartment then the question is irrelevant but if it is considerably more then the questions are reasonable.

As St James' is a very old palace and from what I understand this apartment had had a long term tenant it is reasonable to assume that there would have been some cost to bring it up to the required standard of the early 21st century.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. St. James' Palace is a historical building, and so it's probably in the best interests of preserving history to renovate it when it needs repairs. Taxpayers should be upset if the renovations are causing more for Beatrice than for an "ordinary" tenant, but not necessarily about renovations themselves. But I'm not sure how anyone would find out whether the cost of the repairs is specific to Beatrice being the tenant.

This reminds me of the situation here in Canada, where the Prime Minister's official residence apparently needs major repairs and has for years, but none of the prime ministers will commission a renovation because they don't want to take the heat for using tax revenues to do so--even though 24 Sussex is an important Canadian national building.

Skydragon said:
I still find it hard to understand wht the taxpayer has spent £250,000 to £300,000 to save her a commute of an hour and a quarter (by car). Much faster by train of course!
Click to expand...

Over an hour commute to school seems fairly long to me. I don't know many people at my university who had such a long commute. Would the train really be that much faster? In my experience, public transit isn't usually much faster (if faster at all) than taking the car, depending the time of day you're driving, of course.
 
Skydragon said:
As far as I know it is a suite, including offices. There are probably a dozen or so that would nor have required the amount of money spent, that would have been suitable. I still find it hard to understand wht the taxpayer has spent £250,000 to £300,000 to save her a commute of an hour and a quarter (by car). Much faster by train of course!
Click to expand...

Going by the information in Sarah, Duchess of York's book and also Charles's valet Stephen Barry's books describing the living quarters at Buckingham Palace, the royals there have rooms along a corridor. Andrew had a bedroom, sittingroom bathroom, Sarah moved in with him after they were engaged. (Diana was decoriously given her own bedroom, sitting room bathroom! She didn't share Charles's) Andrew's accomodation was not upgraded even after they had children, I gather nannies would have looked after the girls at the country house if the parents had city engagements and would sleep at BP. The offices are in a different part of the palace not with the living quarters.

Beatrice's apartment at St James's was formerly used by a royal courtier so it was a 'grace and favour' apartment, no rent was paid, a perk of the job. It hadn't been upgraded since the last occupant moved out several years ago, just like Clarence House was upgraded with new wiring and plumbing as well has bringing the building up to recent safety codes, so was this apartment. The government paid for the work to Clarence House as it's a public building, Charles paid for the interiors. St James's is a public building so the government has paid for certain parts of the renovations, (electrical and plumbing don't come cheap!) Being a historic building there would be quite a strict listing of what materials could be used. Andrew and the Queen paid for whatever was covered by the government. So I'm assuming it's for furnishings etc.

From the time of Princess Anne's 1974 kidnap attempt all HRHs have been given 24 hour police protection. (Before they didn't and minor royals got none) Police protection was again upgraded in 1979 after Earl Mountbatten's death. The royals needs to have 'secure' accomodation, in Anne's case, accomodation had to be created at Gatcombe for her police protection officers. Established royal buildings (St James, as Charles and his sons lived there for a time) are secure meaning that a police officer doesn't need to be stationed nearby, as in the next room for William when he was in student digs at St Andrews. Or a separate cottage on the same property as now with the house the princes share. I'm sure it was looked into as to where Beatrice could live, she was even photographed viewing some expensive apartments but security issues limited her choice. PPO would have to live nearby. (Whether or not she should have them is another debate, just as it's been pointed out the Princess Alexandra has 24 protection over her large estate where she lives alone, and is a very minor royal)

Currently all HRHs have 24hour protection having Beatrice living at St James's rather than elsewhere in London is more cost effective ( no nearby sleeping PPO) than if she lived in private accomodation.

As far as an hour commute being acceptable, it's not, I had this situation in a job I worked in. I moved rather than spend an hour each way commuting, I had better things to do with my time than spend it in a car for 2 hours a day! And that's on good days, knowing London traffic it wouldn't need much for the hours to mount, Beatrice was late her first day at the FO as she was caught up in a traffic accident. I remember William was too, on one of his job placements.
 
Times have more than likely changed since Sarah was at BP and the nurseries are probably still there. You make it sound like an itsy bitsy hallway, when in fact the corridors could accommodate a few students with room to spare. I was talking about the adjacent rooms that ars used as a study/office/dressing room, whichever they are used for at the moment. As has been stated in the press, Beatrice's apartment was used by a courtier, had it been offered to another courtier, one wonders if the same amount would have been spent, unlikely me thinks!

As we all know, there is no such thing as a 'secure' building and the police and army guard CH as they do St. James's, instead of extra guards being employed for St. J's, they could be employed to guard whatever accommodation Beatrice could afford to rent herself.:rolleyes: I wonder if she is also claiming a student grant?

Some people have a problem commuting, most do not and to suggest that Beatrice is unable to cope with it, well perhaps cotton wool and Royal Lodge might be the best solution, it would certainly be cheaper for British taxpayers and the money could be better spent on Buckingham Palace.:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Charlotte1 said:
As far as an hour commute being acceptable, it's not, I had this situation in a job I worked in. I moved rather than spend an hour each way commuting, I had better things to do with my time than spend it in a car for 2 hours a day! And that's on good days, knowing London traffic it wouldn't need much for the hours to mount, Beatrice was late her first day at the FO as she was caught up in a traffic accident. I remember William was too, on one of his job placements.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this...last year I had the same situation (that it was taking me about an hour to get downtown for work/school) and I just moved closer to the downtown because that kind of commuting wasn't practical. Especially for school--I don't know what Beatrice's class schedule is like, but I actually had to take an 8 am class once on the same day that my last class ended at 10 pm. In this kind of situation, someone who lives an hour away from school might have to choose between staying at school from 8 am to 10 pm, or going home in between and ending up with four hours all together of commuting back and forth.
 
rmay286 said:
I don't know what Beatrice's class schedule is like, but I actually had to take an 8 am class once on the same day that my last class ended at 10 pm. In this kind of situation, someone who lives an hour away from school might have to choose between staying at school from 8 am to 10 pm, or going home in between and ending up with four hours all together of commuting back and forth.
Click to expand...
The chances of classes running to your schedule are remote, if that was to happen, it would be cheaper for her to book into a hotel! What on earth is she going to do if she ever undertakes official duties, if she is unable to cope, as millions do, with a daily commute by car/train/bus?:whistling:
 
Ah, I don't understand the intention behind resurrecting unflattering pictures of Beatrice originally posted 9 months ago (!) with the sole purpose of pointing out how unflattering they are, so those posts have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
 
I honestly don't understand the hostility toward Princess Beatrice. She seems to be a truly nice person, although one who sometimes lacks judgment: but who doesn't at her age?:flowers:

Warren said:
Ah, I don't understand the intention behind resurrecting unflattering pictures of Beatrice originally posted 9 months ago (!) with the sole purpose of pointing out how unflattering they are, so those posts have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
Click to expand...
 
:previous:
I would like to paraphrase and say "hostility is in the eye of the beholder" it is perfectly legitimate to question the money spent on a member of the BRF especially for the people who are British tax payers and whose money is being used.
Not all photographs are flattering either, it is also a kind of discrimination just picking out photographs that make the person look good just as it is to only put photographs making the person look wonderful although I agree dragging out photos that have been shown before can be boring.
We can see on the other threads that quite often very unflattering photos are shown of members of foreign royal families and some people find them looking good and others seem to think they look terrible. So it seems to me it is more a matter of taste than anything else. Perhaps we could be allowed to judge for ourselves.
 
It does seem like digging back almost a year in the thread specifically to comment negatively on old photos may be taking it a bit far, though, IMO.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
She seems to be a truly nice person, although one who sometimes lacks judgment: but who doesn't at her age?:flowers:
Click to expand...
Many expect more from the Royal Family.

Andrew is seen by some as someone with no regard to misuse of taxpayers money, for flights and golfing breaks. It doesn't matter if he spends 20 minutes at a meeting, trying to sell British companies for the benefit of the shareholders, if he is seen to tie it in with a golf break. Many see Beatrice and Eugenie following in his footsteps, the excuses over the cost of her accommodation are tediously familiar. No matter whether she is in St James's or No. 32 Grub Street, she will have (for some bizarre reason) protection officers on duty, 24/7. To hear, a presumably fit young woman is unable to manage to commute is amazing.
The whole accommodation fiasco seems designed to accommodate the late nights out with her mother and boyfriend.
 
Let's move on as it relates to the expenditures regarding Beatrice's apartment. Some see the need for it and others don't. Let's agree to disagree.

In regards to criticism regarding Beatrice....we have also been down that road before and we DONT need to travel it again. Its one thing to disagree or dislike someone...we are all entitled to our opinion. Its the nastiness that we don't like. So again...LET's MOVE ON.

If anyone has a question and/or concern...please address it via PM with a British mod and/or a TRF administrator. There is no need to discuss it in the threads.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
 
Wisteria said:
Perhaps we could be allowed to judge for ourselves.
Click to expand...
No one's stopping you.
There are hundreds of pictures in the 27 pages of this thread and you can indeed judge for yourself as much as you like.

However, don't bother dredging up a picture posted sometime last year merely to make a pointless "how unflattering is that!" comment.

As Zonk has stated immediately above, it's the nastiness and cheap shots the British Forum moderators are discouraging.
.
 
Warren said:
No one's stopping you.
There are hundreds of pictures in the 27 pages of this thread and you can indeed judge for yourself as much as you like.

However, don't bother dredging up a picture posted sometime last year merely to make a pointless "how unflattering is that!" comment.

As Zonk has stated immediately above, it's the nastiness and cheap shots the British Forum moderators are discouraging.
.
Click to expand...

I thoroughly object to what you have said here. Anyone reading this would think that I posted a photograph, I don´t even know how to, and have never posted any photograph here. I have also never said that a photograph of any member of the BRF was unflattering. If you want to eliminate nastiness and cheap shots, I would stop making them yourself.
I think I am owed an apology and an explanation, not by private pm as this post and your remarks can be read by anyone so I think it is only fair that you write here for the same people to see that I did not post any photo or make any comment like the above one on this thread or any other as a matter of fact.
I just repeat that some photos you obviously find unflattering, other people might not, it is all in the eye of the beholder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CrownPrincessJava
  • Sticky
Italy: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
4
Views
435
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Birthday and Anniversary wishes for the Royal Family of Belgium 2024
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
doro
doro
Marengo
  • Sticky
Liechtenstein: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
doro
doro
Somebody
  • Sticky
The Royal House of Serbia: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
Replies
3
Views
603
Biri
B
iceflower
Princess Isabella, Prince Vincent & Princess Josephine, News Part 1: October 2023 -
Replies
29
Views
6K
polyesco
P

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom