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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous: Ah, but it seems that any Charity that Sarah is involved in and that Beatrice and Eugenie participate in with her, "doesn't count"! Somehow it's not considered a proper Charity and they are not doing proper Charity work!

Go figure!!!


Sadly that's true and this is a very find charity that does a lot of good work - but to some people its associate with Sarah means it can't be any good.
 
Yes Children in Crisis is the charity that Sarah is involved with -

It is not my intent to be critical - but to be accurate, Sarah founded Children in Crisis in 1993, and is it's lifetime president- which is more than just 'involved with' in my mind. UNICEF, the other charity receiving money from Beatrice's hat auction has no connection with Sarah, as far as I know.
According to this website
Princess Beatrice's Charity Work, Events and Causes
Princess Beatrice supports 4 charities. The Elephant one looked cool to me (my type of cause.)
 
People have been pretty hard on the boys in the past - especially Harry. I don't think it's so gender specific. But, this goes with the territory of being royal - and always has. Further, since monarchy requires a line of succession and they can't all ascend the throne, it necessarily means that some characters are more peripheral in the play.

Peripheral characters are scrutinized differently in any piece - whether drama or history. Hopefully, the princesses have been prepared (by their family, especially their parents and grandparents) for this eventuality.

AFAIK, the only "firm" sense we have of the contraction of the British monarchy are the public records involving expenditures (by the public). The Royal List, for example, has been contracted. The family have responded by using their own resources for various activities - presumably "The Queen's" resources (that's what is usually said here).

Well, there's also the undercurrent played out by the princesses own father and mother (whose dealings in the past two or three years have come under intense public scrutiny, have they not?) This too plays a role in how the princesses are seen.

But to pretend that people can be both royal and treated as all the rest of us are treated is a stretch...there have to be some differences. It's possible that Beatrice and Eugenie will grow more and more private (they will have to learn how to do that, as any celebrity does), and that may be to their benefit.

It is the structure of their own family and their own system, though, that both required them to be at a certain occasion and then required them to ask the Queen if they could be excused - the rest of us didn't impose that on them, that's their own world. It's similar, I suppose, to the requirement we had as kids (no longer imposed on the next generation btw) of asking my grandmother (or aunt or parent if the host was a different person) if we could be excused from the table. There is no way a kid could abandon eating their dinner or just wander off to play video games - we had to ask permission for many things. The very fact that we had to ask gave our elders authority over us and yes, our behavior was scrutinized...
 
:previous: Ah, but it seems that any Charity that Sarah is involved in and that Beatrice and Eugenie participate in with her, "doesn't count"! Somehow it's not considered a proper Charity and they are not doing proper Charity work!

Go figure!!!


I would count it, if Sarah was involved out of the goodness of her heart.

But we've discussed this before; I do think it's far less praiseworthy when someone receives financial remuneration for charity work, instead of giving time and effort gratis!
(In fact, I don't see it's praiseworthy at all, since the charity work turns into just another source of income).

While the York girls having every right to go on vacation, they did just get back from Necker Island.
The press will immediately inflame the public with talk about the cost, since no matter what they are told, the public still believes the funding for all this comes from the taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
Sarah doesn't get any remuneration for her work with Children in Crisis. She also set up the charity - to help kids. If you read the 2010-2011 Annual Financial Report on p. 46 there is the following statement The trustees did not receive any remuneration nor reimbursed expenses during the year (2010 - Nil). There entire report can be found here: http://www.childrenincrisis.org/sit... Statements - Children in Crisis - Signed.pdf Previous years are also able to be found here: Financial Information | Children in Crisis


There are a number of people whose jobs actually are to work for the charity - so you don't give any credit to the people who leave western countries with all their mod-cons to go and work in third world nations as teachers, nurses etc because they are employed by a charity.

That is what charities do - they employ people on the ground to do work but often they need to take them from first world countries to work as there are the qualified people in the country.

Others work voluntarily for the charity - in the first world country - to raise funds - this is what Sarah, and the royals do - raise the funds through dinners, balls, fetes, etc. The celebrity is there to raise the profile of the charity and to get other people to part with their hard won cash but that celebrity (whether royal or from the world of the arts or sport) doesn't get paid for their role although they may very well have contributed hours of time into the preparation e.g. my brother does after-dinner speeches and other activities based on his experience of having attended the last 7 Olumpics as a commentator (and many other great sports' events). He usually spends about 20 hours researching the charity or organisation and what they are going to use the money for. All he gets out of it is his dinner, and if he has to travel the costs of his travel and accommodation (although he usually then donates that back to the charity but the books need to show those expenses).
 
Sarah doesn't get any remuneration for her work with Children in Crisis. She also set up the charity - to help kids. If you read the 2010-2011 Annual Financial Report on p. 46 there is the following statement The trustees did not receive any remuneration nor reimbursed expenses during the year (2010 - Nil). There entire report can be found here: http://www.childrenincrisis.org/sit... Statements - Children in Crisis - Signed.pdf Previous years are also able to be found here: Financial Information | Children in Crisis


For some reason I cannot access the report, but isn't Sarah the Life President, not a trustee?
 
For some reason I cannot access the report, but isn't Sarah the Life President, not a trustee?


I don't know why your can't open the link - I had no trouble using the link.

Yes Sarah is Life President.

There is no mention in the report of any payments to her either.

The only payments are to employees.

If you go to the Children in Crisis actual website there is a link from that to the financial statements for the last 5 or so years.
 
I don't know why your can't open the link - I had no trouble using the link.

Yes Sarah is Life President.

There is no mention in the report of any payments to her either.

I imagine any payments would be buried under administrative costs.
Judging by her previous actions, I simply don't believe she would do anything without some sort of payback. JMO.

I admit that it may be that I wrong her, and I don't mean to offend anyone.
 
I am currently working on a Masters in Non Profit Management, and while its certainly possible to "hide" anything under the title administrative costs" its highly unlikely for a couple of reasons:

1) As a result of the economic downturn many charities are seeing a slight rise in donations after previous declines for the past two years. They are also in higher demand because more people are suffering. Simply put less money more customers
2) Charities (at least in the US) are required to have their finances done by a legit CPA's. Considering the nasty issues with corporations and the accounting firms that have gone under because of them (see Arthur Andersen and any firm connected with Worldcom, etc.). No legit company is going to sign off on dubious records. They are going to want an itemized list of these administrative costs.
3) Charities are held to a higher standard in the past because it doesn't look good when administrative costs or salaries paid out are larger than the money used to actually help people.
4) Like restuarants, hotels, etc...charities are also rated based on their finances and the work they do. The higher you are rated by Charity Navigator (and others like it) the higher standing you might have with the public. As a result of previous scandals, organizations such as the United Way and others have seen their donations decline as the public trust in the work that have done has declined.

So its highly unlikely that Sarah is getting paid under the table.
 
Zonk - I'm no accountant (my graduate degree is in a different field) but I do know that, for example, lunch or dinner meetings to 'discuss' projects are often written off as expenses in the private sector, as is travel and hotel stays to plan and attend events relating to business - I assume that these costs for Sarah and her daughters would be paid for by her charity and entered in the category of costs of fund raising or the like rather than administrative costs.
 
Even if any costs associated with travel and hotel stays are in the fund raising column as opposed to administrative costs, any and all charity events (i.e. galas) need to show a profit (or at least have corporate sponsors to underwrite the event). Basically any and all gala events cost a lot of money and need to make a lot of money. That's why charities traditionally have this type of event once or twice a year. The bread and butter (at least for the US charities) are the individual donors.

In addition, if Sarah (or Beatrice/Eugenie to get back on thread topic) serves on the Board of Directors ---- typically most Boards meet once or twice a year. Subcomittees tend to meet more often, and with the age of technology ---- a lot of Boards do conference (video and telephone) to cut costs.

So again, while it is certainly possible that Beatrice and Eugenie (and Sarah) have had some of their costs covered by the charities --- the possiblity is slim that they (especially since none of them hold positions of power within the organizations to authorize expenditures --- that said charity is financing an affluent lifestyle (which was somewhat inferred).
 
Last edited:
The UK position, as I understand it, is that if anyone is a Director of an charitable or not for profit organisation and particularly one that is registered as a company, any payment to them - even if it is re-imbursement for expenses properly incurred - has to be reflected in the accounts as a payment to the Director. There is also a slight difficulty with nomenclature: 'Trustees' are usually registered as Directors as well at Companies House [ The regulatory organisation for Companies, including not for profits etc].

Thus [to keep the thread on topic] if Beatrice and Eugenie are Directors of a charity or company [which they could be if they were in fact known as 'Trustees' ]and each receives a payment in respect of (say) mileage ( even at the 'approved' rate of HM Revenue and Customs [The UK version of the USA's IRS] which is a modest 40 pence per mile or more generously] there has to be a note somewhere in the accounts: it is a payment made to a Director, and the Director will have to be named. In practice, if the sum involved was very small - perhaps a tube [subway] fare of £1.50p, I expect the money would be refunded in coinage as 'petty cash' and probably wouldn't appear, but any payment made to a bank account [by cheque (check) or electronically] would form part of the 'audit trail' [so-called] and would have to reported.


I am a little unclear about the role of a Life President because I have not yet read the Children in Crisis Link in any great detail and It is more a discussion for the appropriate 'Sarah thread', but from the accounts, Sarah is not a Trustee and thus would NOT have been registered as a Director at Companies House, and thus payments to Sarah would not have to appear in the reporting section of the accounts as 'payments made to a director [trustee]' and so theoretically Sarah could receive reimbursements and payments if she was NOT a director. Without wanting to take this thread too far off topic, it does seem to me that Sarah is (for want of a better word]a 'non-working figurehead', probably more an 'Inspiration' if you like.

Hope this helps,

Alex
 
Last edited:
I've done a bit of snipping from the York fashion thread:


Read more: Princess Beatrice opts for simple, but chic fashion choice | Mail Online

While [Dave Clarke] busies himself working for Branson, Bea is said to be organising a series of internships following her History and History Of Ideas degree.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: 'She hopes to broaden her knowledge and experience to complement her position as a member of the royal family. She will look to progress this work into other relevant areas.'


[My emphasis]

Interesting statement from Buckingham Palace again, and since it is attributed to a spokesman it has the status of a properly verifiable comment and source. The words 'royal family' are used again..........which makes me think that if BP has just released this statement again, then there is the possibility that Beatrice could end up doing some royal duties in due course. I am of course not allowed to speculate too deeply in my posts, but it may be the case that Prince Philip's recent surgery could be prompting the BRF to assess their options again in respect of the York Princesses.

Alex
 
Last edited:
:previous: I am really hoping you are right about this latest report. She seems such a lovely girl, and is almost always smiling or laughing when seen in photos. I marvel at how she has managed to to retain her own sense of self over those awkward teenage years that are torment for most girls and made hell for her by the media for no other reason than who her parents are?

She epitomises grace under pressure and displays a maturity far beyond her years as illustrated by the stunning backhander when played when she auctioned her much vilified wedding hat for her favourite charities, and made a bomb doing it!

Her handling of the press and their intrusions has been gracious and dignified with none of the sulks and pouts of her older cousins at the same age. That grace and maturity would be a great asset to the public face of the BRF
 
:previous:

Marg, it sounds odd to us, but without wanting to be accused of baseless speculation again, perhaps Beatrice does not read too much of the negative press about her. Royal Biographies over the years have stated that senior members such as the Queen, Prince Phillip. Prince Charles and The Princess Royal don't read that tabloids. [Princess Diana reputedly used to study the Daily Mail and the Daily Express each day: perhaps this is explained by the fact that her friend Richard Kay used to work for the former and Ross Benson, who was at school with Prince Charles, used to write for the latter.] I am not suggesting that Princess Beatrice or Eugenie 'live in a bubble' and I would think that they are probably told little bits here-and-there, but as royal family members they may well have adopted the practice of senior royals to avoid the tabloids and only concentrate on selected articles from the broadsheets.

Alex
 
As this statement about the internships is the same one that was given when she graduated I have a question.

Is it a statement just being regurgitated or is it a new statement?

The first time this was published was in September - nearly 4 months ago - what has she actually done to organise these internships in the intervening 4 months? It appears to be nothing but...for all we know she could have been doing 10 interviews a week for internships and being turned down or getting them organised or doing nothing at all.

I do hope we hear soon that she has something lined up as there are way too many people ready to drag her down for doing nothing rather than earning her keep.

She will always be a member of the royal family - but that doesn't mean she will ever do royal duties (I think it would have been good to send her to India with her father - so that he had a partner at the official dinners etc that there will be on that tour).
 
Last edited:
I am not so sure that this isn't the DM rerunning the BP statement from last Sept.. It is tucked into the end of the article (along with reference to P. Beatrice and Dave's attendance at a TV show earlier and a previous quote from their friend in the show) historical filler if you will (we need X more inches in this article - here add this previous news.) If it's a new BP statement, though, I'm sure we'll see other news/tabloids pick up on it.
 
. . . . . I am not suggesting that Princess Beatrice or Eugenie 'live in a bubble' and I would think that they are probably told little bits here-and-there, but as royal family members they may well have adopted the practice of senior royals to avoid the tabloids and only concentrate on selected articles from the broadsheets.

Alex
Hmm, I agree with your analysis. However, all that was previous to the advent of the pernicious Internet and it's evil spawn, Facebook, My Space, etc. where it would be a little harder to miss. And the cherry on top of the cake has to be Tweeting!

Oh good grief. People even tweet in Church!
 
Whilst it was lovely to see Beatrice at the Maundy Service with HM and the DofE I do think the Palace needs to think carefully about such events. Her appearance seems to suggest she might possibly take on royal duties at some time. Personally i think the Royal advisers need to either make Beatrice a full time royal as such (which i think for several reasons is unlikely) or stop events such as this and make her as much of a private person as possible. As we saw with the Wessex's you can't have it both ways. I do feel Beatrice isn't getting supported very well by the Palace.
 
Whilst it was lovely to see Beatrice at the Maundy Service with HM and the DofE I do think the Palace needs to think carefully about such events. Her appearance seems to suggest she might possibly take on royal duties at some time. Personally i think the Royal advisers need to either make Beatrice a full time royal as such (which i think for several reasons is unlikely) or stop events such as this and make her as much of a private person as possible. As we saw with the Wessex's you can't have it both ways. I do feel Beatrice isn't getting supported very well by the Palace.

Totally disagree.
As we see at the moment, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are taking part in occasionally engagement whilst still living the "army" life mainly. I see nothing wrong with Beatrice or Eugenie attending the occasional event, particularly through this year, and living a private life on the side. Not seeing them at all, considering at this moment they are 5th & 6th in line, would be tragic.
Creating a television show, and partially making money off your own relatives is a bit of a different lifestyle than the one Beatrice may lead.

You do realise the connection as to why Beatrice attended this specific event?
 
Whilst it was lovely to see Beatrice at the Maundy Service with HM and the DofE I do think the Palace needs to think carefully about such events. Her appearance seems to suggest she might possibly take on royal duties at some time. Personally i think the Royal advisers need to either make Beatrice a full time royal as such (which i think for several reasons is unlikely) or stop events such as this and make her as much of a private person as possible. As we saw with the Wessex's you can't have it both ways. I do feel Beatrice isn't getting supported very well by the Palace.

Totally disagree.
As we see at the moment, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are taking part in occasionally engagement whilst still living the "army" life mainly. I see nothing wrong with Beatrice or Eugenie attending the occasional event, particularly through this year, and living a private life on the side. Not seeing them at all, considering at this moment they are 5th & 6th in line, would be tragic.
Creating a television show, and partially making money off your own relatives is a bit of a different lifestyle than the one Beatrice may lead.

You do realise the connection as to why Beatrice attended this specific event?

I hope the appearance by Bea was a one-off, or one of a few related to the jubilee. IMO, she should be free to fly and find her place in the big wide world, and not be constricted by duties to the BRF, where she can, at best, have a very supporting role. Let her have the freedom to rise in her career (whatever that may be in), rather than be held back because of her position in the BRF.

The position of the Cambridge couple is very different. They are the future King and Queen. As there are plenty of other royals around at the moment, they can have the luxury of maintaing "relative normalcy" in their life in Wales. They will continue to pop up now and then, but I hope they can keep this arrangement alive for another few years at least. I suspect the answer to how long they can do this is linked nexcusably to when Charles succeeds to the throne.
 
As there are plenty of other royals around at the moment, they can have the luxury of maintaing "relative normalcy" in their life in Wales. They will continue to pop up now and then, but I hope they can keep this arrangement alive for another few years at least. I suspect the answer to how long they can do this is linked nexcusably to when Charles succeeds to the throne.

I agree there are a lot of working royals right now, but most of those royals are a generation or two older; in a couple of decades, most of them might have to scale down their official roles. That would effectively leave William, Kate, Harry and Harry's future wife as the working royals of their generation. Taking that into consideration, Beatrice might well become a full-time working royal in future; if that is the plan, it's good she's starting so soon.
If, however, the plan is for her to have a "normal' life devoid of royal duties, then hopefully occasions like this will be rare.
 
I agree there are a lot of working royals right now, but most of those royals are a generation or two older; in a couple of decades, most of them might have to scale down their official roles. That would effectively leave William, Kate, Harry and Harry's future wife as the working royals of their generation. Taking that into consideration, Beatrice might well become a full-time working royal in future; if that is the plan, it's good she's starting so soon.
If, however, the plan is for her to have a "normal' life devoid of royal duties, then hopefully occasions like this will be rare.

IMO, she may be required at some distant point in the future, say 15 years from now, when the Wessex couple, Andrew and Anne want to retire. Till then she should be free to live a normal life. who knows what the world looks like then.

I really do not thing the British public want to see more "minor" royals. Have a look at the comments on the DM website under the story about Bea's appearance at the Maundy service to illustrate my point.
 
Totally disagree.
As we see at the moment, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are taking part in occasionally engagement whilst still living the "army" life mainly. I see nothing wrong with Beatrice or Eugenie attending the occasional event, particularly through this year, and living a private life on the side. Not seeing them at all, considering at this moment they are 5th & 6th in line, would be tragic.
Creating a television show, and partially making money off your own relatives is a bit of a different lifestyle than the one Beatrice may lead.

You do realise the connection as to why Beatrice attended this specific event?

Of course I realise the York connection however this is an event that in my lifetime at least the Queen and DofE have done alone so its not as if the Kents of Gloucesters appear when they are in those areas. This just seems to me as if Beatrice wanted to be involved in some duties so they chose on this probably because it has a link to York.
I'm not saying Beatrice can't make appearance and of course this was not a solo engagement but at a time when there is much debate about the future roles of the York Princesses its imperative the Palace sets the right message. I really do believe from what we've seen in the past that mixing public engagements and a "private life" does not work, either you are a full time royal or your not. Kate and William are different as they will be King & Queen one day so there was never any way in which they would lead a private life with jobs etc in the way the York girls may have to.
I like Beatrice and I think she is a kind, warm person so this is not a personal attack its saying that people around her need to think carefully about what her life holds for her and put her in the best position to lead that life. Of course they will always appear at Trooping the Colour, Sandringham Christmas etc but engagements such as this or solo engagements are a different matter.
 
Till then she should be free to live a normal life. who knows what the world looks like then.

You're right, but she should not be stopped from attending royal events with her parent or grandparents.

Have a look at the comments on the DM website under the story about Bea's appearance at the Maundy service to illustrate my point.

Oh yes because the readers who comment on DM articles reflect the public mood.
 
IMO, she may be required at some distant point in the future, say 15 years from now, when the Wessex couple, Andrew and Anne want to retire. Till then she should be free to live a normal life. who knows what the world looks like then.

I really do not thing the British public want to see more "minor" royals. Have a look at the comments on the DM website under the story about Bea's appearance at the Maundy service to illustrate my point.

I don't think those you have mentioned when retire, as Princess Alexandra and The Duke of Kent are still going strong in their 70's. I don't think when we have a King Charles, Beatrice and Eugenie will have a chance to do any engagements. We all know Charles wants to slim down the family, hence why Louise and James aren't HRH. (I know Edward chose to have their kids not styled as HRH, but I can see Charles having had something to do with it.) With this slimmed down family, there wont likely be room for the Yorks to do any work. William and Harry's kids will be helping out as Andrew, Anne, Edward and Sophie age.

I hope the York girls can get jobs and lead normal lives, whether they are Princesses or not. They are human beings after all, if they want to get a job and there is one available, I see no reason why they can't be able to. The reason it didn't work for the Wessex couple is they tried to work AND do Royal engagements, among other things. If the Yorks can just solely work as regulars then they should be successful. Any company who has one of the Queen's grandchildren as part of their crew would be onto a winner!
 
I think this whole 'Charles wants to slim down the family' has become a bit of an urban myth. We don't honestly know if that is his intention, or if it will be his intention when he finally accedes the throne.

I do feel, however, that Beatrice and Eugenie should live their own lives, attending the Trooping/Remembrance Sunday etc. if they want while perhaps having a handful of charities that they support. If I were them I wouldn't even try to make a career as a full time royal. I just wouldn't want the continual carping that we already see about the cost to the taxpayer of the bodyguards, the cars, the helicopter rides and so on. No matter what these girls would do as full time royals they'd still be accused of clinging onto the royal lifestyle. The only reason this kind of comment doesn't happen with the Gloucesters, Kents etc. is that the vast majority of Brits don't know they even perform royal duties. The Duke of Gloucester, as dedicated and hard working as he is, could walk down Oxford Street and no one would know who he was.

It won't be easy for them to find employment here, and it's likely they'll suffer much the same press interference in their jobs as Sophie did. So, if I were advising them, I'd say if they can live to their desired standard from the income they derive from their trust funds, they should volunteer their time in a charity or good cause full time. If they can't, I'd encourage them to work abroad in the US or Hong Kong, or on the Continent, where they'll be able to get a job and do it without having the British press continually going on about how they only got the job because of who they are, or is their employer trying to 'take advantage' of having a royal on the payroll? Because, let's say for example, Princess Beatrice is working for a London bank (unlikely I know) and is attending some work event put on for prospective customers. Someone overhears her talking about how she spent last weekend with her cousin William and his wife in Balmoral. That's an entirely innocent conversation. But the British press will trip over themselves to accuse her, and her employer, of trying to profit from her royal connections. To me, that's just not worth it. So, I'd work abroad.
 
Yes, there will always be complaints about commercial activities by members of the BRF, even if it is by members not financially supported by the crown and not undertaking official engagements. When Richard Gloucester was a practicing architect, and not a working role, there were complaints that his firm was getting clients based on him being a royal. It doesnt matter if the complaints are based on facts, people will still complain and some elements in the press will still write about it.
 
Peter Phillips has been lucky so far, he's not well known as a royal, and he's been principally employed by RBS in Hong Kong, which is far enough away from the British press. We'll see what happens now he's unemployed and presumably seeking employment.

Prince Friso was able to work here in the UK completely freely because he had no profile here. Beatrice or Eugenie could head to Hong Kong or Singapore or LA and enjoy much the same freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom