Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie 1: Discussion Until 2022

[Zonk]

I agree that both girls need to be ever mindful in the public eye when they are out and about...but aren't we being a little harsh.

Beatrice is in what..her second year in college and Eugenie is going to start in the Fall and we have people basically writing them off as failures in life and not being productive members of the British Royal Family. Based on what? And please let's not start with the parental units.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Zonk

I agree that both girls need to be ever mindful in the public eye when they are out and about...but aren't we being a little harsh.

Beatrice is in what..her second year in college and Eugenie is going to start in the Fall and we have people basically writing them off as failures in life and not being productive members of the British Royal Family. Based on what? And please let's not start with the parental units.

Beatrice started uni last September and so is in her first year at uni with graduation planned for 2011. It is a joint honours degree in history and history of ideas at Goldsmiths, University of London.

She may very well take another gap year after that and start her career/full time duties in 2012 - the year of her grandmother's Diamond Jubilee.

[Royal Fan]

When Have other Royals started full time?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

When Have other Royals started full time?

Princess Anne at ab 18 on leaving school.

Prince Charles at about 27 when he left the navy.

The Queen and Princess Margaret at 18 or so.

Prince Andrew in 2001 when he left the navy.

Prince Edward 2002 when he gave up the idea of having a non-royal related career.

Remember that Beatrice is the first British princess to go to uni so Princesses were expected to start earlier than the princes who did military duty first.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I'm going to go somewhere in between and say that William will become King probably in about 30 years....although the Queen Mother would have been 102 the year that she died, but even men with longevity in their genes don't (generally, for some unknown reason) live as long as the long-lived women in their family. But really, supposing William has children at about 35, and he becomes king at around 60, his children would be 25 and younger when he ascended the throne. Would they be performing full-time royal duties at that age? I wonder, given the fact that Harry is turning 25 and isn't doing so. What if William's sons wanted to do military training first, like William and Harry, before stepping on to the royal stage?

People are living longer nowadays, but they're also waiting much longer to start families. The Queen had two small children already when she was William and Harry's age, which is part of the reason Charles has waited as long as he has to become king.

Its always talking about situations like this, but even if William';schildren are between 20 and 25 and in fulltime training /education when he becomes King, it will only be a few years before the children enter public duties, so I still remain unconvinced of the need for the York girls to have anything other than a peripheral role in the BRF.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

They should become involved With Girl Guides made CinCs of an Army Regiment or something.

IMO, I think a C in C role is highly unlikely for these girls in a hurry. As of now, I think they lack the credibility and the seniority to take these roles on.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

They should become involved With Girl Guides made CinCs of an Army Regiment or something.

To become CiC, they have to be put forward and accepted, I wonder how many regiments would welcome them into the role?

[Menarue]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Sky and Muriel, they seem too scatterbrained to take on any of these responsible roles and besides that, I agree, what regiment would want either of them.

[Zonk]

Scatterbrained? And this decision is based upon what?

Exercising bad judgement in certain scenarios?

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Princess Anne at ab 18 on leaving school.

Prince Charles at about 27 when he left the navy.

The Queen and Princess Margaret at 18 or so.

Prince Andrew in 2001 when he left the navy.

Prince Edward 2002 when he gave up the idea of having a non-royal related career.

Remember that Beatrice is the first British princess to go to uni so Princesses were expected to start earlier than the princes who did military duty first.

Anne didn't actually begin fulltime royal duties until she was in her early 30ties. She was a fulltime equestrian ( like her daughter Zara is now) until she retired after the 1976 Olympics, she then got pregnant with her first child and then Zara, it wasn't until the early 1980s that Anne started her fulltime royal work.

Charles ( as heir to the throne) began at the youngest age of 27. Andrew was 41, Edward in his late 30ties.

The Queen and Princess Margaret did perform duties from a young age but no more than what Beatrice and Eugenie currently attend. ( Official ceremonies, weddings etc and they were children of the monarch not grandchildren like B & E) In earlier years royals didn't perform the same number of engagements as has become the norm, Prince Philip set the bar rather high.

Compare B & E with 2 other grandchildren of a monarch, prince Amedeo and Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. The Belgium 2 attend no royal engagements, Amedeo is currently on a gap year wandering the world too but with a lot more privacy than the British royals get.

[Menarue]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Scatterbrained? And this decision is based upon what?

Exercising bad judgement in certain scenarios?

My answer is Yes.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

Anne didn't actually begin fulltime royal duties until she was in her early 30ties. She was a fulltime equestrian ( like her daughter Zara is now) until she retired after the 1976 Olympics, she then got pregnant with her first child and then Zara, it wasn't until the early 1980s that Anne started her fulltime royal work.

Anne was a full time royal by 1970 with her equestrian duties and training fitted in to that schedule. She started royal duties in her teens.

She became President of Save the Children in 1970 and was undertaking 100s of duties at that stage.

She was doing overseas tours as well as many engagements at home.

At that time she was also on the Civil List so probably felt a need to work to justify her pay.

In the 1970s athletes weren't full time the way they are now. In fact a professional athlete couldn't have competed at the Olympic Games so if she was only being an equestrianne she was ineligible for the Games. She would therefore have to show that she was not making her living from her equestrianism in order to compete. She was able to do that simply by working as a royal.

According the the New Zealand Monarchist website she began full time royal duties aged 18 (1968)
http://nzmonarchist.blogspot.com/200...ess-royal.html


This is also supported by the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A11580266

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Menarue

My answer is Yes.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion...but exercising bad judgement doesn't mean you scatterbrained IMO.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well, imo they will end up as socialites, exploiting their royal title in order to fund their livestyles as they are completely unimportant for the institution. I predict a Princess Margaret scenario but much will depend on their choice of husbands. If they are going for the Lord Snowdon / P Junot type we will have many years of headlines ahead of us

They both have inherited too many party / wild life genes to live a quiet duty life - a mixture between their mother who does the socialite lifestyle on the basis that she once was a HRH and their father, prince andrew, for a reason aka "randy andy" or "airmiles andy", who does accommodate his title and duties as son of the monarch but also knows very well how to use his HRH for his own purposes or having a damn good time.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Anne was a full time royal by 1970 with her equestrian duties and training fitted in to that schedule. She started royal duties in her teens.

She became President of Save the Children in 1970 and was undertaking 100s of duties at that stage.

She was doing overseas tours as well as many engagements at home.

At that time she was also on the Civil List so probably felt a need to work to justify her pay.

In the 1970s athletes weren't full time the way they are now. In fact a professional athlete couldn't have competed at the Olympic Games so if she was only being an equestrianne she was ineligible for the Games. She would therefore have to show that she was not making her living from her equestrianism in order to compete. She was able to do that simply by working as a royal.

According the the New Zealand Monarchist website she began full time royal duties aged 18 (1968)
New Zealand Monarchy: Happy Birthday: HRH Anne Princess Royal

If she had another role, training as an equestrian, then she wasn't a fulltime royal. A fulltime royal only does royal engagements, they have no other role. So be definition of the fact that she was competing competitively and training then she wasn't a fulltime royal. Andrew and Edward also carried out large numbers of engagements when they had other jobs but they are not considered fulltime royals until they left the navy and film business. The Duke of Kent also carried out numerous official engagements ( including overseas trips)while he was in the army and yet he isn't considered as taking on fulltime royal work until he left the army in the late 1970's.

I'm sure the NZ monarchist site just lists her as taking on fulltime royal duties at 18 as she didn't go on to university rather than looking at what she actually did. Anne didn't start with a heavy load of engagements until the mid to late 1980's, that can be confirmed by checking the Court circular.

[muriel]

I think the issue is not what age the York girls might start undertaking royal roles, but whether they should carry out any royal roles at all, other than appearing on the balcony once in a while, or perhaps at Christmas. If they want to do some charitable work,they can do so in ther spare time, but their main focus should be to build independent careers for themselves, away from royal duties. It does not matter to mean what they choose to do with their lives: as teachers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, social workers.. entirely their choice!

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Well, imo they will end up as socialites, exploiting their royal title in order to fund their livestyles as they are completely unimportant for the institution. I predict a Princess Margaret scenario but much will depend on their choice of husbands. If they are going for the Lord Snowdon / P Junot type we will have many years of headlines ahead of us

They both have inherited too many party / wild life genes to live a quiet duty life - a mixture between their mother who does the socialite lifestyle on the basis that she once was a HRH and their father, prince andrew, for a reason aka "randy andy" or "airmiles andy", who does accommodate his title and duties as son of the monarch but also knows very well how to use his HRH for his own purposes or having a damn good time.

And here we go again..it appears that some of us are making judgement calls and assumptions based on the lives, actions and attidues of Sarah and Andrew. Beatrice and Eugenie are their own personas with their individual opinions, likes/dislikes and experiences. Do parents play a role in how children develop opinions, likes/dislikes, etc? Of course they do but they so do grandparents, friends and just plain doing it for yourself.

I have been thinking about Beatrice and Eugenie (and pretty much the Yorks) and how they are viewed here in the Forums: The York family (particulary the parents) are viewed in a harsh, negative light (some deserved and some IMO not deserved) and their kids are viewed in the same manner simply because they are the daughters of Andrew and Sarah. Now don't get me wrong...some of things they do are not that smart (drinking, stumbling around while under the influence, etc.) Its like the Smith family in any particular town in any particular country..and the Smith kids are treated with contempt simply because of their last name. Think about a movie or television show when one says...Well...he/she will never amount to anything. He/She will just be like their mother/father.

Its quite sad really.

[Menarue]

Although you have a point about the girls being judged by their parents this would not matter if they behaved sensibly.
If these girls were better behaved in public then I doubt that anyone would remember that their mother had a reputation for bad judgement and doing the wrong thing in public.

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Menarue

Although you have a point about the girls being judged by their parents this would not matter if they behaved sensibly.
If these girls were better behaved in public then I doubt that anyone would remember that their mother had a reputation for bad judgement and doing the wrong thing in public.

Honestly...I am not sure if they behaved sensibly it would matter. Its like people are waiting for them to make mistakes (that many youth do make regardless of position) so they can say...Well, what do you really expect? They are the children of so and so.

I wonder if we would all have this attitude if they were the children of Edward and Sophie?

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Do parents play a role in how children develop opinions, likes/dislikes, etc? Of course they do but they so do grandparents, friends and just plain doing it for yourself.

Usually parents not only have influence but are the main or dominating influence during childhood.

I have been thinking about Beatrice and Eugenie (and pretty much the Yorks) and how they are viewed here in the Forums: The York family (particulary the parents) are viewed in a harsh, negative light (some deserved and some IMO not deserved) and their kids are viewed in the same manner simply because they are the daughters of Andrew and Sarah. Now don't get me wrong...some of things they do are not that smart (drinking, stumbling around while under the influence, etc.)

And still there is no justification for a negative opinion?

Its like the Smith family in any particular town in any particular country..and the Smith kids are treated with contempt simply because of their last name.

The York girls are not treated with contempt because of their last name but because of their actions and unlike the Smith family they are representatives of a country, royals who are partly funded by the taxpayer. Huge difference.

It is beyond me why critizising a Princess for running around drunk or naked etc etc etc (not a one-off by far) is always being received as "bashing a York girl". No it's not their name it's the unsuitable way they behave in public.