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.
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.

I agree about Peter Phillips and that highlights my biggest concern. Peter and Zara were almost always kept away from the press as much as possible thus when they became adults they were able to move with relative ease to full time"normal" jobs. Personally I feel at times that its almost as if some people are trying to put the Princesses into such a position whereby their public profile makes being a full time royal the only option for them.
 
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.


But why should they have to leave their own country?
It seems so unfair. :ohmy:
 
That's why I think they're likely to find it easier to undertake employment abroad. The British press have shown that they are willing to go so far as to pay people to pretend to be Sheiks etc. to try and catch a royal, or even a colleague of a royal, saying anything about their family which is then condemned as trying to 'take advantage' of their connections.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's incredibly difficult for them to find gainful employment that's compatible with the fact that they are grand daughters of the Queen without being accused of preferential treatment, but if they were to become full time working royals they'd be condemned as work shy and lazy.

Given all this, I'd pack up my trust funds and head for pastures new.
 
The problem with working abroard is that the Counsellors of State have to be resident in the UK and Beatrice is one heartbeat away from that position and Eugenie two.

Sure Edward and Anne could take on that responsiblity again but it does set an awful precedent for future generations - e.g. Harry's children having to leave the country as well and eventually CoS's who are 20th+ in line to the throne because those closer are forced to leave their country to gain useful employment.

Currently the following people arefull time working royals with their ages given:

HM The Queen - 85 (86 later this month)
The Duke of Edinburgh (90)
The Prince of Wales (63)
The Duchess of Cornwall (64)
The Duke of York (52)
The Earl of Wessex (48)
The Countess of Wessex (47)
The Princess Royal (61)
The Duke of Gloucester (67)
The Duchess of Gloucester (65)
The Duke of Kent (76)
Princess Alexandra (75)

Part-time royals

The Duke of Cambridge (29)
The Duchess of Cambridge (30)
Prince Henry of Wales (27)


A total of 15 with only 5 under 50 and only 2 under 30.

So in 20 years time the youngest full-time current working royal will be 49 (William) or possibly Harry's wife. Harry will still be in the army I suspect with many of the others deceased e.g. The Queen and Philip, and the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra. So there will still be 12 working royals with the next generation of young royals still some years away from full time duties as they will still be in full time education.

When you look at figures like that there is no need for the York girls at all to take on royal duties but they can have have a real life instead of the phoney life of a royal. They can actually have some control over their lives - even if they have to leave the UK to do it (which I think they should do - they would have privacy and not have to face the vitriolic press every time that appeared in public).
 
Last edited:
The Queen changed the Order of Precedence for Private Occasions based on blood principles, placing princesses of the blood before princesses by marriage. My question is...

If Sarah & Andrew had not divorced and remained married, would her daughters have precedence before her in the current Order of Precedence for Private Occasions??
 
The Queen changed the Order of Precedence for Private Occasions based on blood principles, placing princesses of the blood before princesses by marriage. My question is...

If Sarah & Andrew had not divorced and remained married, would her daughters have precedence before her in the current Order of Precedence for Private Occasions??

Not all Princesses by blood have precedence over Princesses by marriage in Private Order of Precedence.. For instance, the Duchess of Cornwall has lower precedence than Princesses Anne and Alexandra, but higher than anyone else. Similarly, it appears that the Countess of Wessex and the Duchess of Cambridge actually have higher precedence than Beatrice and Eugenie.

If Sarah and Andrew were still married, it would have been extremely unlikely Sarah would have lower precedence than her daughters. Sarah's place would most probably be immediately above that of the Countess of Wessex - and as I said, the Countess enjoys higher precedence than the York Princesses in both Precedence lists.
 
I'm confused... Buckingham Palace said he was based on blood principles. It seems the blood principle was directed only at Camilla.
 
I always try and adopt a 'real world' attitude when dealing with precedence, styles, titles and orders. I know there are always official lists and the sort but the fact is in the 'real world' , blood princesses or not, Bea and Eugenie are below the Duchess of Cambridge and for that matter, I think the Countess of Wessex is below Catherine as well. Beatrice and Eugenie can be of great use to the Firm but it is a hard sell with the public because the tabloid press gets to decide who is in and who is out in the BRF and the Yorks, Duke and daughters are out. Personally I would like to see both princesses have their own careers and a part-time role with the Firm
 
Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie are blood royals but since they're not senior working members of the "Firm", I think The Duchess of Cambridge & Countess of Wessex take precedence over them.

I too would've liked to see Bea & Eug take on official roles although I don't think it will happen. We will see them supporting their charities, opening things too.
 
True, for state occasions Kate outranks the York Sisters. But I believe Beatrice & Eugenie are essential to the future of the Royal Family. The Gloucesters & Kents are getting older & older. Including Anne, Andrew & Edward. It may be sometime before William ascends the throne, but his children & Harry's won't be of mature age to carry out royal duties... and I believe that is where Beatrice & Eugenie come in as a pair of extra hands. Although Prince Charles intends to remove them from royal life, I think Prince William may resurrect their membership in the family as full time working royals. The British Monarchy is the most well known & popular royal family in the world. They're not only associated with the UK... but the Commonwealth realms including hundreds on top of hundreds of charities. I just can't see William, Kate & Harry doing this all alone. Again, they will need help and having Beatrice & Eugenie around will be of much use.

And regarding the precedence issue again... I think Kate marrying William is a great match. However, not to jinx them... Kate is a royal by marriage, not by birthright. Like Diana & Sarah if divorced, the HRH style and privileges that come with it will go as quickly as it came. The York Sisters on the other hand were born royal. They can divorce & marry as many times as they please... they'll always be royal.
 
Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie are blood royals but since they're not senior working members of the "Firm", I think The Duchess of Cambridge & Countess of Wessex take precedence over them.

I too would've liked to see Bea & Eug take on official roles although I don't think it will happen. We will see them supporting their charities, opening things too.

There is what we want to see happen and then what happens according to the rule and all that. So, it is what it is. I don't know if you have seen any of it - but Iluvbertie keeps track of the weekly Court Circular and Engagements and all that. He has also peered off into the future and discussed the needs of the firm going forward. It is engaging reading - so maybe seek that out. I learned a lot from it! :)
 
Last edited:
.And regarding the precedence issue again... I think Kate marrying William is a great match. However, not to jinx them... Kate is a royal by marriage, not by birthright. Like Diana & Sarah if divorced, the HRH style and privileges that come with it will go as quickly as it came. The York Sisters on the other hand were born royal. They can divorce & marry as many times as they please... they'll always be royal.
That's an odd statement... but the fact that Bea and Eug will always be royal is immaterial. If the public want a slimmed down royal family and the Yorks in general are not popular, their role if any in the Firm will be a bit part.
 
Although I fully support the "Firm" in focusing on the the main 7 senior royals. I think the Kents and Gloucesters are doing a fantastic job on supporting The Queen but I think going forward the best way on presenting the Monarchy to a more modern world, is to focus on the main 7 royals.
 
Actually Charles may pull a King George V and issue new LP regarding styles and titles. The Yorks may not always be royal after all. With the stroke of a pen in 1917, 14 princesses and princes lost their royal styles and titles. Who knows what the future King Charles may do
 
Actually Charles may pull a King George V and issue new LP regarding styles and titles. The Yorks may not always be royal after all. With the stroke of a pen in 1917, 14 princesses and princes lost their royal styles and titles. Who knows what the future King Charles may do
That would certainly take some of the wind out of the sails of the princesses' mother.
Being the curious sort I went searching for the 14 princesses and princes who were defrocked and haven't been able to figure out who they were.
I did run accross the letters patent from 1917 and it seemed to contain a grandfather clause in it when it states:
"hall not henceforth be assumed or borne...excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style, degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked..."
I did read that the Connaught's first son was perhaps impacted by this but couldn't find reference to anyone else.
My guess would be that Charles would not stir the pot by 'deprincessing' the York girls, especially as time will inevitably move them further down the succession totem pole once William and Harry have children of their own.
 
Why would Charles deprive the York Sisters of this right? They were born as male line grandchildren of the British monarch which entitles them to the status of Princess and the style of HRH.... these honours have been held by them for most of their life. If that's your case, Princess Alexandra will lose her title as well. If he does indeed issue new LP I could only see it effecting future members.

And The Queen repays the treasury for the royal duties that her children & cousins perform. Its not like in Queen Victoria's time when royals were paid just because they were "ROYAL". I think Charles is gonna be tight with the purse stings... the less royals the less he has to foot out of his soon-to-be Duchy of Lancaster income. Remember, Elizabeth II supported and gave allowances to the Duke & Duchess of Windsor, the late Queen Mother, the Gloucesters & Kents including her own children from her private incomes. And for a short time she gave an allowance to the late Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent & her family, the original payments were being footed by Queen Mary until her death.
 
You said... "With the stroke of a pen in 1917, 14 princesses and princes lost their royal styles and titles".

Queen Victoria's LP of 1864 clarified the entitlement to the style & title of Prince/ss and the prefix of Royal Highness to the children of the Sovereign's sons. It never mentioned great grandchildren. George V's letter patent confirmed Queen Victoria's ...two changes being only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall be entitled to the style of HRH and title of a British prince... all other siblings being titled as Lord/Lady. And secondly, that the grandchildren of the sons of the Sovereign in the male line shall be styled and titled as children of a Duke.... no longer Prince/ss and Highness, though the latter was never formalized through LP of any Sovereign... just a long history of tradition & custom that he wanted stopped.

So the 14 princes & princesses that lost their titles weren't all great grandchildren of Queen Victoria were they? Or was George III explicitly talking about great grandchildren in general? Prince Ernest Augustus III was a great grandson of George III, thus a second cousin of Queen Victoria. It seems some of the fourteen that you are talking about possessed German titles which George V abolished as recognition in the UK in 1917.
 
It doesn't seem like there would be much point in denying the York princesses their titles--or would you call them styles? Anyway they are self limiting since their children won't inherit them.
 
It doesn't seem like there would be much point in denying the York princesses their titles--or would you call them styles? Anyway they are self limiting since their children won't inherit them.
Beatrice and Eugenie have titles of British Princesses and styles of Royal Highnesses.

I agree with you to a certain degree; it is unlikely Charles or William will ever issue decrees that are specifically targeted at the girls. However, it is possible that Charles or William (during their respective reigns) will issue LPs limiting the style of Royal Highness and title of a Prince/Princess to fewer number of people (for example, only children of the Sovereign and children of the Heir Apparent), meaning that Beatrice, Eugenie and some other royals will automatically lose their styles and titles.
 
The York girls will play an important role in the future of the BRF. Charles and William will make sure of that. Bea and Eugene will be important members of the BRF.

You know this how? All signs point in the opposite direction.
 
It certainly isn't looking that way they aren't due for any Royal Engagements and have never had any so far. Germany was for the Government not the Royal Family. According to the rumours Charles wants the exact opposite and not have them part of the official BRF and I doubt William will change what his father does.
 
The York girls will play an important role in the future of the BRF. Charles and William will make sure of that. Bea and Eugene will be important members of the BRF.


I think it's very unlikely.
Charles seems determined to sideline the York princesses, and they don't appear to have the personal popularity with the public that would give them leverage.

Speculation has been rife that Andrew is battling Charles to include his daughters in the Firm, and Charles is adamantly against it because he wants the Firm limited to his own family.
Time will tell, but I think it's significant that, now that Beatrice and Eugenie have finished school, they have to pay rent for their flat at St. James' Palace.
 
Its a numbers game. The Yorks will never play a full-time role but I have no doubt the Yorks will be called on to play a part in the future of the BRF Especially when the current elderly members of the BRF slow down the official engagements.
The Yorks will be needed because the BRF will be short with bodies after HM passes

It's a numbers game in that if the engagements are cut down, the York girls won't be needed and that is the way it ultimately looks right now.
 
I think the ultimate answer to that question will be in the hands of the british people, actually.
When the older members of the royal family start to slow down or even die, the monarch (ie, Charles) will have two options:
1. accept new members to take on the roles of the previous members, and it means, the york girls of course
2. cut down the number of engagements.
This last alternative will imply a structural change in the way the royal family works: less members and less engagements, thus paying attention to less subjects, or devoting less attention to the same subjects, etc, etc. Maybe british people will be perfectly fine with that. Some other countries are, look at Norway, for example, where the royal family means basically only 4 people and much less engagements than the BRF and norwegians seem not to mind that. Maybe british people are the same. Or maybe NOT. If they are not, they will start not to like the "new" RF, criticism will arise and eventually the number of engagements will have to go up again to cope with demand. If that's case, the yorks have to appear on scene, Charles liking it or not.
 
:previous: this makes a lot of sense but the palace needs to sort out its communications first.

I think that c.10% of the Uk know that the Kents and the Glos do any royal work at all. About another 10% are aware of the Wessex and York workload. (this is speculation on my part)

If the public don't know what is being done then justifying replacements will be difficult - as in "replacements for what?"

Most of the public think that the civil list still exists and that their 62p is being spent per annum.

These 2 princesses don't stand a chance until the comms. is sorted out.
 
If you look at the ages and numbers it is possible that there is no need for Beatrice and Eugenie and it seems clear from last year that they aren't going to be working for The Firm. There were reports that Beatrice asked Charles and William to intercede on her behalf with The Queen to have a larger role in the Jubilee celebrations and both refused.

If this report is correct then it is safe to assume that neither of them see a role for her, or her sister, in their reigns.

Currently those over 60 carry out 80% of all the engagements with 68% of all engagements being undertaken by those in their 60s. As Andrew, Edward and Sophie aren't in their 60s they aren't in the group doing the bulk of the engagements and so could increase their loads to take up the duties of the Kents as they step back.

Last year those over 70 carried out a total of 1099 (according to Mr O'Donovan's figures) and 1390 (according to my figures which include figures for The Duchess of Kent, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent). With three younger royals waiting in the wings to be dragged into full-time duties that is about 400 a year each - comparable to the current workload of Andrew and Edward. Add the number that they did last year it would bring them up to figures closer to Charles and Anne.

There are then two people in their 30s - William and Kate - and one in his 20s - Harry who could all take on full-time royal duties and easily cover the remaining 20% of engagements done by those over 70 not picked up by Andrew, Sophie and Edward.

Add to the mix a wife for Harry and there are four in the younger generation to replace those in their 70s and older while those in their 40s, 50s and 60s keep going.

In 20 or so years those in their 40s, 50s and 60s will be in their 60s, 70s and 80s and slowing down a bit while the new generation are getting ready to take over.

People talk about when is William going to leave the RAF to become a full-time working royal. When he does so he will take on many of the duties currently being done by Philip and The Queen (and his father who will step up to others done by The Queen while she keeps doing the absolute essential duties). Kate is already slated to take over from The Duke of Kent's most high profile duties at Wimbledon and again could probably take on even more of his duties and those of Princess Alexandra.

Harry will also have to leave the army sooner rather than later to take up a full-time royal career to pick up the remaining duties of the older royals that William and Kate can't pick up or can't be picked up by his future spouse.

There really is no need for the girls to be even part-time royals.

What the numbers actually show is that there is no need for the girls as William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse can carry on the workload of the aging royals while the bulk of the work is still done by those who are currently doing the work - Charles and Anne who are currently doing about 35% between them annually.
 
Last edited:
It won't surprising if some charities get phased out as their patrons pass on or retire. Also there is a good chance Australia will become a republic so there is one less country to worry about. In time Charles will let people know his plans but they really do seem not to include Beatrice or Eugenie I think if they did they would have some sort of role established instead they are both being encouraged to work and lead normal lives and do some charity work off their own bat.
 
It won't surprising if some charities get phased out as their patrons pass on or retire. Also there is a good chance Australia will become a republic so there is one less country to worry about. In time Charles will let people know his plans but they really do seem not to include Beatrice or Eugenie I think if they did they would have some sort of role established instead they are both being encouraged to work and lead normal lives and do some charity work off their own bat.

But hopefully still part of the Commonwealth.
 
It won't surprising if some charities get phased out as their patrons pass on or retire. Also there is a good chance Australia will become a republic so there is one less country to worry about. In time Charles will let people know his plans but they really do seem not to include Beatrice or Eugenie I think if they did they would have some sort of role established instead they are both being encouraged to work and lead normal lives and do some charity work off their own bat.


Why would Australia becoming a republic have any impact on the number of royals and the number of duties?

The royals only come here every couple of years anyway - while visiting other Commonwealth countries that are republics as often or more so - particularly the ones in Africa which Anne visits a lot. She usually visits one or two African Commonwealth republics annually.

The Queen visits more republics - both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth than she does the Commonwealth realms e.g. this year she will visit the Republic of Italy and probably another non-Commonwealth republic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom