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

[rcra]

Agree. I think that in a way, Sarah might be holding the girls back, without even realizing it. I thinks this is their biggest problem. The girls love their mother very much and they know she was insecurity issues. There is no way they say: "Look mum, I love you and all but you need to step back". This would crush Sarah.

 

[Russophile]

Agree. I think that in a way, Sarah might be holding the girls back, without even realizing it. I thinks this is their biggest problem. The girls love their mother very much and they know she was insecurity issues. There is no way they say: "Look mum, I love you and all but you need to step back". This would crush Sarah.

It would crush the Princesses even more were she to hold them back. That is not a parents job. A parents job is to teach their children well (sorry, Russo sounds like a Crosby, Stills and Nash song here!) and let them go on their own. By not letting them, Sarah is not doing her parental duty.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that dismantling the Tripod would be difficult for everyone concerned and involve upset on all sides. I can see Sarah pulling out all the manipulative stops and the princesses feeling very guilty and responsible. Would Sarah go so far as to publicly complain about being "cast off" by her daughters? However, if she did that, I think that people would likely side with Beatrice and Eugenie on that one.

It would crush the Princesses even more were she to hold them back. That is not a parents job. A parents job is to teach their children well (sorry, Russo sounds like a Crosby, Stills and Nash song here!) and let them go on their own. By not letting them, Sarah is not doing her parental duty.

 

[Diarist]

Oh dear, this really is a messy situation, isn't it? I, too, believe that the real reason for the decision not to give royal roles to B and E is the actions of their mother - I have come to this view by 'looking at the situation from the other way round' : imagine if Sarah and Andrew had not divorced and that Sarah [and Andrew for that matter] had for the past 25 years carried out royal duties in the same manner that (say) Princess Anne has. If that had been the case, then I am sure that the Queen and Prince Charles would both see the virtue in letting the younger generation join in and help share the burden...

Dismantling the 'tripod' would appear to be hard - or at least difficult, but there again, in purely practical terms, Sarah has NOT been constantly at her daughters' sides for the last n years: she was not with them when they were at school and she certainly wasn't by their sides when they were at university [...imagine a professor about to begin his lecture, looking up and seeing Beatrice sitting there poised to take notes on the history of ideas, and then seeing that by her side was a grinning redhead!!]

If only Prince Andrew was more sensitive to situations, rather than being so boorish. The matter of the dismantling of the Tripod could be solved so much more easily if he were to say: Fergie, old thing, you've been gadding about for the last quarter of a century. The girls adore you and know that you always mean well, but now it is time for them to spread their wings....they will, likely as not, be married in a few years' time and now seems an ideal time for them to start to find their royal feet and do a few duties by themselves. They will need - and always be grateful for - your encouragement and advice, but rather in the same way that Catherine and William will in due course be taking on more duties, the two girls will need to do this on their own: Catherine and William mostly do not have Charles and Camilla there out with them when they carry out royal duties, but no doubt they are 'back home', watching carefully with help and advice being available should it be needed by William and Catherine, and I therefore think that our two beloved daughters need to be able to enjoy this type of freedom as well...............

Which would solve things nicely. Which is why it is unfortunate that Andrew does not have the nous to think of this himself... Perhaps the Queen could think of stepping in? Without having any evidence to prove it, I get the feeling that AFTER the diamond jubilee, although I am sure that the Queen WILL NEVER ABDICATE, she might well start to think of handing back a few more duties to the younger generation, and if so, then this would be an ideal opportunity to call on B and E and therefore an opportunty for the Tripod situation to be tackled in a sensitive manner BY THE QUEEN. After all, if it is acceptable for Catherine and William to 'fly solo', Sarah can't really object, can she?

Only my thoughts, and not meant to offend,

Alex

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Very insightful! Although I don't really follow the Yorks girls closely, I always had the vague impression that they have their own minds, and that they are aware of how folks view their parents. Whether they will step up and tell their parents to "shape" up or at least not drag them into their antics anymore, is up to them--they just need the courage to do that.

Of course I could be completely wrong with all this, but I do feel for them though and do hope that eventually they'll become productive members of the RF, especially when the Queen and DoE need to cut back even more and shift the work to the rest of the RF.

Just my very humble opinion on something I have little idea about.

 

[lauraford2]

I find the Duchess of York completely irritating for many reasons, but the way she latches onto her daughters -- the constant references, the hand-holding at events -- is bizarre. (I have a twenty year old daughter with whom I am very close; I am not her friend or her playmate and I don't feel I have to constantly emphasize how close we are -- of course, I did just write in this reply that we are close!) However, more importantly, we really don't know what Beatrice and Eugenie are capable of. True, they seem to party a lot (but don't a lot of young people their age?) but I have never read anything which indicates that they are not polite, likable girls. If they set their minds to it, I'm sure that they could do good service for the Royal Family. However, we will probably never know. It's unfortunate, because I think Beatrice and Eugenie are capable of a lot of things that they will never be able to even try out. If they pursue careers in the private sector, no matter how hard they try and how well they do, I think that they will just be continually criticized and that is a shame. In addition, their appearances will probably be constantly torn apart. I do not find either one particularly attractive, but so what? Isn't it more important that they have good hearts? I would much rather have a so-so looking person (looking presentable, naturally) who is compassionate and caring out doing charity work than a supermodel/celebrity who shows up for the cameras.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I think the issue of whether or not the girls will be given any sort of "working royal" position is much related to the total amount of money involved. If the line is drawn at the children of the Future King, that makes some sense. If Prince Andrew's children are paid by anyone other than their father (e.g., the Queen, Prince Charles or the taxpayers), then surely Princess Anne's children should be paid as well, and Prince Edward's when they are old enough. That's a lot of money spent out on the Queen's various grandchildren - and surely Charles has a say in this, as he will have to administer the entire bunch one day.

Presumably, they have trust funds (all of the grandchildren) and need no further monies from the Queen. Everyone has likely known all along that it was unavoidable that Charles's children be treated differently - but, does Harry get money for royal appearances? I've never heard that he does. He has a job, and a great deal has been made of that fact while he's here visiting in the States.

I've said this before, but I really do believe that most people around the world do not recognize Beatrice and Eugenie very readily, whereas Fergie is still recognizable to many, hence she is dragging them into public recognition in the only way she (and her PR consultants) can figure out.

Both girls are plenty old enough to "fly on their own" if they wish, they do not have to hold hands with their mother in public if they do not wish to (or if, in fact, they are still that immature that they cannot figure out how to manage that situation, then they aren't ready to "fly on their own.") Most children indicate quite clearly to their parents how they wish to be treated, as adults, in public. Most families cooperate in setting up habits or customs with which everyone is comfortable. If the girls are uncomfortable with their mother's style but pretend in public not to be, then they've all chosen that path together (although that sounds rather sad to me - everyone colluding so that Sarah doesn't have to grow up and act like a mature adult).

But perhaps the girls like the handholding or whatever. Who's to say?

 

[Mermaid1962]

The difference is that Edward's children don't use the titles prince and princess, and Princess Anne's children don't have any royal status whatsoever. Beatrice and Eugenie have been HRH Princess Beatrice of York and HRH Princess Eugenie of York since they were born and were very much in the public eye. If they aren't going to do royal engagements, the Cambridges better have a whole whack of kids grown up by the time Prince Charles passes on.

I think the issue of whether or not the girls will be given any sort of "working royal" position is much related to the total amount of money involved. If the line is drawn at the children of the Future King, that makes some sense. If Prince Andrew's children are paid by anyone other than their father (e.g., the Queen, Prince Charles or the taxpayers), then surely Princess Anne's children should be paid as well, and Prince Edward's when they are old enough.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They don't need to have a whole 'whack of kids' at all.

What people have to realise is that in reducing the size of the working royal family they will also be reducing the number of engagements by a considerable number as well e.g. currently they carry out over 4000 engagements a year with 15 working royals but as that number will be reduced under Charles to about 6 - 8 then the number of engagements will also have to be reduced to about 2000 and the small hospitals and military units etc will simply not have any royal visits. Tours will also have to be shorter or many countries that get a visit now about once every 4 years like Australia will have to settle for once every 8 years (and Canade down to every 4 years instead of every 2 years as now)

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I was being facetious with my "whole whack of kids" remark. I just want to scream "It's not fair!" All those organizations with royal ties won't be getting their Royal visits, and we in the Commonwealth who like to see the Royal Family from time to time won't see them as often.

 

[Mirabel]

What people have to realise is that in reducing the size of the working royal family they will also be reducing the number of engagements by a considerable number as well e.g. currently they carry out over 4000 engagements a year with 15 working royals but as that number will be reduced under Charles to about 6 - 8 then the number of engagements will also have to be reduced to about 2000 and the small hospitals and military units etc will simply not have any royal visits. Tours will also have to be shorter or many countries that get a visit now about once every 4 years like Australia will have to settle for once every 8 years (and Canade down to every 4 years instead of every 2 years as now)

And- there will be massive screaming about it, from the public sector!

Wait and see- everyone is all for cutting down on the size of the RF- until it results in these cutbacks, and then the complaints will be heard.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I agree. I wonder, though, how many people are for cutting back on the Royal Family, really. People like to see overall costs cut (particularly those who think that the taxpayers bear the cost of every little thing), but do they really want fewer working royals?

Wait and see- everyone is all for cutting down on the size of the RF- until it results in these cutbacks, and then the complaints will be heard.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

As far as the major Commonwealth nations, they have been covered by the senior royals: The Queen, D o E, P o W, Pr. Wm and Harry. So I suspect they will continue to be paid quite a lot of attention and from the same list, adding in the D o Cornwall and the D of Cambridge as well. Lesser royals wouldn't be asked to handle such high priority engagements, even if they were in greater favor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Princess Anne is currently touring Ghana and Sierra Leone - countries that the 'big star' royals don't visit.

What will happen if the big guns of the royal family are to continue their current attention to Australia, Canada etc is that countries like Ghana and Sierra Leone won't get a royal visit at all.

You can't have it both ways. The big guns can't do all the major tours and all the minor tours as well as all the other things on their own - and that means compromises - smaller countries not have royal visits at all (quick way to lose more kingdoms) or the bigger countries having fewer visits (again a quick to say - not interested in us so we aren't interested in having you).

These are the sorts of tours that Beatrice and Eugenie could be undertaking for King William but as they are being told - you aren't wanted - back luck William and Kate will have to do a lot more.

 

[Meadow]

They may not be counting on Australia as a future Monarchy country. The republic issue has been bandied about for a long time. Most seem to be waiting for the Queen to pass on to really put into a action. That will be one country less to worry about! Do the lesser Royals do smaller tours? Anne is the Queens daughter and has done many of these tours for her charity. Doesn't it depend on what charity work the girls do? I think if people want a smaller Monarchy then they will have to accept fewer visits and less charities supported. They can't have it both ways. I would hope that the RF and the powers that be are working out a system. Of course not everyone is happy but then they aren't now either.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Did you read the piece by Graham Richardson in yesterday's Daily Telegraph Republicans bow to the Queen's charm | thetelegraph.com.au

This avowed republican says we might get a chance under Charles but that William is unassailable.

 

[Mirabel]

Did you read the piece by Graham Richardson in yesterday's Daily Telegraph Republicans bow to the Queen's charm | thetelegraph.com.au

This avowed republican says we might get a chance under Charles but that William is unassailable.

It's a rather silly article, though; the Queen is determined to hang on so her grandson gets the job??
As if any of us has any control over how long we live!!!

 

[yvr girl]

We may get visits by senior royal quite frequently, but also regular shorter visits as well. The Duke of York, The Wessexes, The Princess Royal and to a lesser extent the Kents are all regular visitors to Canada. They are involved with numerous organizations here.

 

[Mermaid1962]

There will be fewer senior members of the BRF, though. The Princess Royal will be 81 in 20 years, and Prince Charles and The Duchess of Cornwall will be 83 (Camilla's a bit older, I think). The Cambridges will be almost 50, and their children likely wouldn't have started royal engagements and likely won't until they finish university. The Wessexes will still be active, but they'll be getting close to 70 years old, and their children likely won't be doing royal engagements at all. If the Duke of York remains healthy (unmarried men tend to die earlier), he'll be in his early 70s. So I think that that Beatrice and Eugenie will be needed, and perhaps sooner than we envision.

We may get visits by senior royal quite frequently, but also regular shorter visits as well. The Duke of York, The Wessexes, The Princess Royal and to a lesser extent the Kents are all regular visitors to Canada. They are involved with numerous organizations here.

 

[Lord_Royal]

The York princesses WILL be needed. Any courtier who thinks otherwise has his or her head in the sand. It's going to come down to a numbers game and the generation gap. As well, if you cut the number of public appearances substantially The Firm is going to be viewed as extremely lazy and lose relevance.

Canada, Australia and the smaller Commonwealth nations all need a regular Royal presence. Canada receives the lions share of Royal visits and their popularity there is tremendous. There isn't one of them who isn't liked, even the controversial ones are forgiven their transgressions (Prince Phillip's a "straight shooter"...Princess Michael of Kent is "ultra fabulous"...Sarah, Duchess of York is "Fergie, that feisty redhead") so the York girls would be welcome in Canada, their father visits the Canadian province of Ontario regularly, as does their mother, always to positive news coverage.

I think both York princesses have tremendous potential. Fergie simply needs managing, which is absolutely possible through a variety of means (I will forever be convinced that her trip to Thailand during the Cambridge wedding was palace dictated).

The York princesses would be best placed in areas that 1) are welcoming to their mother (ie Canada and the United States) 2) smaller and off the beaten royal track (ie where The Princess Royal is dispatched to).

 

[Iluvbertie]

My understanding is that it isn't the courtiers that want to cut the York princesses out from royal duties but Charles. Obviously he believes that he, his sons and his siblings can do it all but when William is King there will be William and Harry and William's children (obviously if Andrew's daughters aren't wanted then the same thing has to apply to Harry's).

 

[Mirabel]

My understanding is that it isn't the courtiers that want to cut the York princesses out from royal duties but Charles. Obviously he believes that he, his sons and his siblings can do it all but when William is King there will be William and Harry and William's children (obviously if Andrew's daughters aren't wanted then the same thing has to apply to Harry's).

But Charles will probably take advice from courtiers; he is known for polling his advisors when he makes decisions.

And really, Lord Royal is right; there's simply no way Charles and his family can keep up with the demand for a royal presence once the older generation is gone. To cut back is sure to cause resentment. Besides, Charles, Camilla, and Anne are already in their sixties. So who's left?

 

[Burzg]

But Charles will probably take advice from courtiers; he is known for polling his advisors when he makes decisions.

yes i know this , but maybe he not like advice in last & listen for him self

 

[Susanna Wynne]

I still believe that, despite the number of patronages wanting/needing to be filled, if these girls do not present a truly good and wholesome image, and their mother continues to be seen to be overly influencing them, the powers that be (Charles and his advisors) will not want them in any official or semi official roles where they could cast any further tinge on the BRF. And it won't have anything to do with whether they can be charming and endearing on a specific engagement (they surely can and do), it will be about how they live and what they do with the rest of their lives.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I still believe that, despite the number of patronages wanting/needing to be filled, if these girls do not present a truly good and wholesome image, and their mother continues to be seen to be overly influencing them, the powers that be (Charles and his advisors) will not want them in any official or semi official roles where they could cast any further tinge on the BRF. And it won't have anything to do with whether they can be charming and endearing on a specific engagement (they surely can and do), it will be about how they live and what they do with the rest of their lives.

I understand your point about their mother but what on earth has caused the comment 'do not present a truly good and wholesome image'?

Unless being young and enjoying their university years is the negative image. Afterall at the same ages Harry and William were regularly seen coming out of clubs drunk at night.

 

[jemagre]

My understanding is that it isn't the courtiers that want to cut the York princesses out from royal duties but Charles. Obviously he believes that he, his sons and his siblings can do it all but when William is King there will be William and Harry and William's children (obviously if Andrew's daughters aren't wanted then the same thing has to apply to Harry's).

Can't the girls get "normal" jobs and still do charity work? Why does it have to be either this or that. With this arrangement they could probably satisfy most people.

 

[nascarlucy]

Agree with you jemagre. Getting a "normal job" and still doing charity work will probably be the norm in 20 years for most royals.

 

[Mirabel]

I understand your point about their mother but what on earth has caused the comment 'do not present a truly good and wholesome image'?

Unless being young and enjoying their university years is the negative image. Afterall at the same ages Harry and William were regularly seen coming out of clubs drunk at night.

William and Harry could afford it. The York girls can't.
What seemed mere high spirits in Diana's beloved sons is a chip off the old block in Fergie's daughters.
There's no comparison.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

You are so right, Mirabel. It is all about image, and is not necessarily "fair." If they want to be considered working royals, they cannot afford to put a foot wrong. Fair or not, and largely because of their parents' missteps, the York princesses have serious image issues to overcome, and would have to be completely above reproach for a good long time before they will be respected and well regarded by most of the public and the BRF.

 

[Diarist]

I think that both William and Harry tend to be forgiven their excesses because they are both serving Officers in the Forces. In other words, they are seen to be doing a relatively tough job that is pretty demanding at times.

I also think that Diana's untimely death also will always mean that there is a residual sympathy for the boys.

Image is indeed sometimes unfair. But it's the old 'perception is reality' concept again.

However unfair it might seem, Beatrice and Eugenie are seen about holidaying and partying a fair amount of time. Beatrice has not yet either taken a job or be seen to have a consistent plan of voluntary or charity service. The fact that she has only recently left university is only slightly in her favour; the bottom line is that - regardless of recessions etc - Princesses are meant to be seen to work. Beatrice is very much better educated that Diana was, but even the latter [with a pretty solid financial foundation behind her as well] was seen to be occupying her time pre-Charles in an constructive way - teaching assistant at the Young England Kindergarten, nannying etc. Beatrice has to be seen to be doing something because 1. She is Royal 2 She has the advantage of a university education 3. However unfair it may seem, she has to counteract the 'party girl' image and also the unfortunate 'image' of her mother, 'Freebie Fergie with all her other attendant foibles. It makes poor Beatrice a target, but if you have the advantages of having been born royal, you have to put up with the disadvantages as well...

Just my thoughts,

Alex