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.
All I can say is that the time anyone can rightfully dissect and criticize any working hours, holidays, royal engagements and who the York girls are involved with and are they headed for the altar or a split is when those actions I've listed are in any way, shape or form coming out of public funding pockets, purses and bank accounts.

These two women are private citizens with a royal title and do not work for the British Royal Family. With this in mind, IMO, they both could move to a remote island in the South Pacific, live on bananas and coconut milk and teach hula dancing and I'd think its great for them if that is what they choose to do with their lives. :D
 
10 DEC, 2016
Prince Andrew denies rift over daughters Eugenie and Beatrice - BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38269963
 
All I can say is that the time anyone can rightfully dissect and criticize any working hours, holidays, royal engagements and who the York girls are involved with and are they headed for the altar or a split is when those actions I've listed are in any way, shape or form coming out of public funding pockets, purses and bank accounts.

These two women are private citizens with a royal title and do not work for the British Royal Family. With this in mind, IMO, they both could move to a remote island in the South Pacific, live on bananas and coconut milk and teach hula dancing and I'd think its great for them if that is what they choose to do with their lives. :D

But some peoples opinion would still be formed by the rubbish that would be written by Mail Online.

Hula dancing- is Bea up to the challenge? Intrepid journo explores South Sea Island
Grass skirts - what was Eugenie thinking! South Ken reels in horror!
York girls are anti-spinach, as they eat bananas! Farmers raise concerns.

Based on previous experience - these are not real quotes.
 
So Prince Andrew has stirred up a hornet's nest. I am sorry to say IMO he hadn't helped his daughters' cause . Better to "shut up and put up" I think these two young women would have been better served if their father had made a similar decision to Ann and steered away from royal titles for the children, but I guess this was never going to happen.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
So Prince Andrew has stirred up a hornet's nest. I am sorry to say IMO he hadn't helped his daughters' cause . Better to "shut up and put up" I think these two young women would have been better served if their father had made a similar decision to Ann and steered away from royal titles for the children, but I guess this was never going to happen.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

ALL grandchildren of the Queen in the male lineage are a Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom. That is not on request, by decision, or by initiative. It all happened automatically thanks to the Letters Patent of George V in 1917. So the children of Charles, Albert and Edward are Princes indeed.

The children of Princess Anne (Phillips), the children of Princess Margaret (Armstrong-Jones), the children of Princess Mary (Harewood), the children of Princess Louise (McDuff): none of them were a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom.

So your assumption that it was better that "if their father steered away from royal titles like Anne" is wrong. Anne did not need to steer away at all. Her children would never receive any royal title in the first place.
 
Perhaps it would have been better to state that maybe Andrew should have had the foresight and request that his daughters be known as Edward's children are.

Andrew, however, holds onto his princely status tighter than Scrooge with his money and I have to believe the same goes for his ex-wife Sarah and being known as "Duchess". There was no way either of them would have their daughters as anything less than Princesses of the Blood Royal.
 
The difference with Prince Edward was that he married way later than siblings: all of them were already divorced when he married. He also married years after the so-called Annus Horribilis, so he entered into a total different situation and circumstances than his siblings.

That Prince James and Princess Louise are styled as an Earl's son respectively daughter still does not take away that the Letters Patent of 1917 still covers them, like they cover their cousins Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. In that aspect there is no difference.

A solution could be when -upon marriage- the Princesses make to know they want to follow the example of their cousins James and Louise. That means: they will be addressed as daughters of a Duke: Lady Beatrice Clark.
 
Last edited:
If we all had the power of hindsight to go back to do things differently .....we would all do it.

I think iluvberties said it perfectly many many posts again and people seem to either forget it or were not here when it all went down.

First of all Duc is correct [as others have stated over and over again]. Anne's and Mark had the chance to allow their children to be born with a title [Lord and Lady] and made the decision that THEY thought was best for their children at the time. Thus they turned down Her Majesty when Mark was offered an Earldom. This was the 70's and Anne had the foresight to realize that as a daughter of the monarch, her children would be eventually move down the line of succession as her brothers had children and it would be better for them if they were just plain Phillips, who happened to be grandchildren of the Queen.

That was not the case with Charles, Andrew and Edward whose children automatically received the titles of HRH at birth.

Its also worth noting that when Andrew and Sarah first married and had their daughters, the monarchy was popular as was.....WAIT FOR IT....Andrew and by some extension...his wife Sarah...not Diana popular but well liked nonetheless. Needless to say this was before the marriage breakup, the bankruptcy, the scandals, etc. Thus there was no question that Beatrice and Eugenie should not be given HRH's as this was their birthright. Yes, its theirs despite what many here think.

Flash forward ten to fifteen years later, and Edward and Sophie have the foresight to acknowledge that while their children might be HRH's, they prefer if they go by their lesser titles of Lord and Lady. But make no mistake, they are still HRH's. We can discuss why Edward and Sophie decided to do this [not the correct thread] but it seem like they decided to meed in the middle of the Anne decision and the Andrew birthright.

If and when Beatrice and Eugenie marry, I imagine they will follow their cousin Princess Alexandra, who before her husband was knighted, she was known as Princess Alexandra, the Honorable Mrs. Oligvy.
 
Eya thank you for posting great article


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
With the DOE rightfully retiring what will this mean for B & E, or it doesn't really affect them?
 
:previous:
I'll be greatly surprised, if Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugene get more engagements. Duke's of Edinburgh retirement may affect agendas of Prince Edward, Prince William, and Prince Henry.
 
Last edited:
It will mean nothing for them.

This will mean that William, Kate and Harry have to step up from around 150 or so each per year to around 400 - 500. Those three can easily pick up the numbers that Philip is dropping with no need for the girls to do anything.

The timing of Philip's retirement is interesting as it matches William and Kate's return to living in London full time and William's retirement from the Air Ambulance. There is no coincidence but was clearly planned so that William and his wife and brother will pick up a lot of Philip's work.

Until William, Kate and Harry are doing a full load and finding they need any other people there is no need for the girls.
 
Prince Philip was involved with 780 organizations! I don't think that it's reasonable to expect William, Harry, and Kate to take on over 250 organizations each--if the organizations continue to want Royal Patronage and the Royal Family are willing to take them on.

The youngest HRH in the Kent family, Prince Michael of Kent, is 75 this year. The Duke of Kent is 82. Princess Alexandra is 80. The Duke of Gloucester is 73. The Queen's children range in age from 53 to 66, except for Prince Charles, who'll be 69 in the fall.

I can certainly see a greater role for Beatrice and Eugenie in the next little while, even though they'll likely never be "full-time royals.":flowers:
 
^^^

Well, I didn't say they'd need to be full time royals, clearly there's no need for that yet if ever :p it would be interesting to see the events and patronages they take on during the upcoming year though.

Mermaid1962: I can certainly see a greater role for Beatrice and Eugenie in the next little while, even though they'll likely never be "full-time royals."

Agreed :)
 
Last edited:
It will mean nothing for them.

This will mean that William, Kate and Harry have to step up from around 150 or so each per year to around 400 - 500. Those three can easily pick up the numbers that Philip is dropping with no need for the girls to do anything.

The timing of Philip's retirement is interesting as it matches William and Kate's return to living in London full time and William's retirement from the Air Ambulance. There is no coincidence but was clearly planned so that William and his wife and brother will pick up a lot of Philip's work.

Until William, Kate and Harry are doing a full load and finding they need any other people there is no need for the girls.

According to UK press reports (chiefly the Times) Prince Philip made this decision over Easter and then spoke to HMQ who gave it her unreserved support. I think it likely that was Williams decision to come to London to take up more duties which cemented Philips views about retirement.

And Im not sure about this 'full load' idea. We talk about modernising royalty and then tie them down to the same old routine that has gone on since George V. I think we will see more structure such as Princes Trust, Heads Together, rather than random charities and patronages. With fewer royals, the old ways have to change.

The remit will have to be wider though - not just children sport veterans and mental health.
 
Philip isn't standing down as Patron or President etc from his patronages. He isn't doing engagements for them. That is what the announcement said.

I see no reason why William, Kate and Harry can't handle, between them, the 200 or so engagements that Philip did last year particularly when well over half of them were ones that he did with the Queen so he did around 70 solo ones - and that is all that needs to be covered (I have those exact figures somewhere but not available to me at the moment).
 
William, Kate, Harry, and Andrew will have to step up to the plate. Philip and Elizabeth's daughter, Anne is just like her parents. Very hard-working royal. She does a lot of royal duties and engagements.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will have to do some duties soon. They can't be party girls forever. They will have to prove to their uncle Charles and step-aunt-by-marriage Camilla that they can be future royals of duty. They have their own coats of arms for God's sake.
 
Andrew already does a lot. To the 27th April this year he is third on the 'League Table' according to my figures in the British Royal Family Engagements Thread. He is usually 3rd, 4th or 5th - and has been every year that I have been doing this.

Unfortunately, because he is usually solo he doesn't get the press coverage and so people think he doesn't do much when he does.

Sadly - the same with Edward whose work is usually only reported when he is with Sophie or it if for the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme - which accounted for around 1/3 of his engagements last year (fewer this year as it isn't the 60th anniversary year).

The York girls are neither wanted or needed - by the British public, press or the royals themselves - other than Andrew.

Charles is very determined to streamline the royal family to monarch, spouse, children, spouses and future heirs. He isn't going to sideline his siblings or his mother's cousins but he isn't going to add his nieces into the mix setting up the idea that the children of the younger siblings aren't going to be used in the future at all.

The idea of 4000+ engagements has to go with that idea - down to around 2000 in time or even 1000 (which I suspect is what is William's aim).
 
William, Kate, Harry, and Andrew will have to step up to the plate. Philip and Elizabeth's daughter, Anne is just like her parents. Very hard-working royal. She does a lot of royal duties and engagements.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will have to do some duties soon. They can't be party girls forever. They will have to prove to their uncle Charles and step-aunt-by-marriage Camilla that they can be future royals of duty. They have their own coats of arms for God's sake.

The problem is not that they are party girls. It is that the media ignores them and spins any work they do. Unfortunately some people are only too happy to believe what the daily mail spins and sees them only as drunk slobs.

Both Eugenie and Beatrice have a number of patronages. As well as working, Eugenie for an art gallery and Beatrice is building a business. Whether or not the firm will ever make them working royals matters little to them it seems. They are both happy to take on patrinages.

It seems idiotic IMO not to use them. Give them a few patronages officially. They are royals. Whatever they do is going to have a royal stamp even if unofficial. Instead of hiding them like a dirty secret, and having the charity work they do either ignored or spun to be about holidays, put it on the cc.

Honestly no one has made a single arguement for why not. It doesn't cost any more money. Requires no more staff. Doesn't come with any perks. Simply is adding them to the cc. With the Gloucesters and kents retiring in coming years, no one can argue there isn't room, or need.

Charles may say quality over quantity but do people really want that? Do they want six working royals doing maybe 300 events a year each? Are the royals going to get less money when they no longer have to pay expenses for the work of ten extra royals? Not at all.

When the annual budget gies up every year, and the amount of royal duties keep declining, popularity will decline. And the questions of value.

So if anyone can explain why not giving Beatrice a few of her grabdfathers patronages is a bad idea I'd love to hear it? Because it's not about money. It's not about benefits for her. I must be missing something.
 
I think that the two York princesses are two very different people who get lumped together by the press as having the same wants and needs and goals. That's unfortunate, especially if this desire to be paid-up full time royals is really more their parents' goal for B and E. I personally don't think Eugenie is interested in the full-time royal route.

It also seems that whenever articles appear in the papers (particularly the DM) addressing the issue of Beatrice possibly being a full time royal, those "they were in high spirits" stories appear concurrently with pictures showing her leaving clubs in the wee hours. I don't think its fair at all, but at the same time that juxtaposition does not make her an attractive figurehead or patron for a serious charity.

An obvious reason for bypassing Beatrice and Eugenie for paid royal roles is the additional staff and security and .... infrastructure they would probably need as full time paid Firm members. It would be expensive. The salary would be the least of it.

Another thing is they way the Firm usually works with many organizations and charities who want support or a patron or even a one-off visit. The group or charity approaches a particular individual Royal Family member they want to support them. Its not like the Windsors all sit down at a felt table and a Private Secretary deals out patronages and sponsorships like playing cards. I confess I don't know what goes into handing off Prince Philip's portfolio, but I think his serious charities and organizations would want to be consulted about their new Firm representative.

With all that said, if a number of charities, schools et al in Great Britain are clamoring for Princess Beatrice, Buckingham Palace should pay attention to that.
 
I think that the two York princesses are two very different people who get lumped together by the press as having the same wants and needs and goals. That's unfortunate, especially if this desire to be paid-up full time royals is really more their parents' goal for B and E. I personally don't think Eugenie is interested in the full-time royal route.

True. Beatrice has been way more pro-active in charity work than her sister and I do think she wants to do that sort of work and may even have believed until relatively late in her education that she was going to do royal work. When you look at her work history and her degree they don't match up which points to someone studying something for interest only and not with an eye for a future career whereas Eugenie is working in the field she studied.

It also seems that whenever articles appear in the papers (particularly the DM) addressing the issue of Beatrice possibly being a full time royal, those "they were in high spirits" stories appear concurrently with pictures showing her leaving clubs in the wee hours. I don't think its fair at all, but at the same time that juxtaposition does not make her an attractive figurehead or patron for a serious charity.

She is the patron of some serious charities though -

An obvious reason for bypassing Beatrice and Eugenie for paid royal roles is the additional staff and security and .... infrastructure they would probably need as full time paid Firm members. It would be expensive. The salary would be the least of it.

This I think is the crux of the issue. Fewer royals doing engagements equal less expense but not necessarily a smaller Sovereign Grant being paid allowing more for the maintenance of the palaces.

Another thing is they way the Firm usually works with many organizations and charities who want support or a patron or even a one-off visit. The group or charity approaches a particular individual Royal Family member they want to support them. Its not like the Windsors all sit down at a felt table and a Private Secretary deals out patronages and sponsorships like playing cards. I confess I don't know what goes into handing off Prince Philip's portfolio, but I think his serious charities and organizations would want to be consulted about their new Firm representative.

Reading how Andrew described the way they decided who took over from Princess Margaret and the Queen Mum when they died would suggest that you latter description of them sitting around dolling them out like playing cards is close to the mark. It wasn't a case of the 100s of charities that lost their patrons in 2002 asking for individual royals to become their patrons but the royals deciding which ones they would take over from the two recently deceased royals.

With all that said, if a number of charities, schools et al in Great Britain are clamoring for Princess Beatrice, Buckingham Palace should pay attention to that.

Beatrice has about 13 - 14 charities now (about the same number as Kate). The problem is that when she does something for them she isn't recognised officially. There might be some press coverage but no mention in the Court Circular and so it seems she doesn't do anything for charity etc. e.g. last week she went to a function with her father for Pitch@Palace - we had pictures of her there but The Queen only recognised Andrew's participation.
 
They don't get paid a salary to be a working royal. Expenses get paid but not a salary.

The York girls already have security. Which is privately paid. That is no added expense. They also currently function without staff. Some how they manage to plan their own schedules without assistants and secretaries.

No serious charity would want them as a figure head :ermm:no guess the dozen charities Beatrice is currently patron of, and her sister almost as many, must be what, not serious :bang: Beatrice has been involved with UN related work. Contrary To the party princesses image, other people clearly take them seriously. And honestly faced with either losing a royal patron all together or getting an over worked Cambridge, or a York, many charities would probably be happy to have a York fill the role.

Literally the only difference between the charity work they do now and if they did it officially, would be recognition in the cc.


As for more money for palaces....no one is asking for any added expenses. The Gloucesters, kents, and Prince Philip are all retiring now and soon. That frees up a huge amount of funds anyways. Adding one or two yorks certainly would not cost even a quarter of what it visits for all those retiring. It still leaves plenty free.

Beatrice is working with the Branson charity. She is going to do it whether as a royal or not. Royals might as well get credit for it.
 
Last edited:
Reading how Andrew described the way they decided who took over from Princess Margaret and the Queen Mum when they died would suggest that you latter description of them sitting around dolling them out like playing cards is close to the mark. It wasn't a case of the 100s of charities that lost their patrons in 2002 asking for individual royals to become their patrons but the royals deciding which ones they would take over from the two recently deceased royals.

That's a bit disconcerting, Bertie! But, on reflection, I guess it's the only practical way to handle it.

They don't get paid a salary to be a working royal. Expenses get paid but not a salary.

The working Royals get expenses on top of a set amount of money from HM.

The York girls already have security. Which is privately paid. That is no added expense. They also currently function without staff. Some how they manage to plan their own schedules without assistants and secretaries.
I believe that if even one of them became a FT Royal with, say, 180-300 engagements a year, some of them extended overseas trips, she would have at least two secretaries or assistants. They would need offices in a royal palace, so The Crown loses possible revenue from renting those rooms.

Then, you have police on the public dime, including those motorcycle outriders who accompany Royals on domestic engagements, and there's no way Andrew will pay for all of that if his daughter is in the CC as a working royal. Andrew himself is reimbursed for hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in travel expenses on top of his Sovereign Grant money from HM. He would expect the same for Beatrice.

No serious charity would want them as a figure head :ermm:no guess the dozen charities Beatrice is currently patron of, and her sister almost as many, must be what, not serious :bang: Beatrice has been involved with UN related work. Contrary To the party princesses image, other people clearly take them seriously. And honestly faced with either losing a royal patron all together or getting an over worked Cambridge, or a York, many charities would probably be happy to have a York fill the role.

Literally the only difference between the charity work they do now and if they did it officially, would be recognition in the cc.


As for more money for palaces....no one is asking for any added expenses. The Gloucesters, kents, and Prince Philip are all retiring now and soon. That frees up a huge amount of funds anyways. Adding one or two yorks certainly would not cost even a quarter of what it visits for all those retiring. It still leaves plenty free.
I don't think Richard Gloucester and his wife are retiring anytime soon. They're contemporaries of Prince Charles and Camilla.

And, yes, I DO think that the Yorks are looking for added expenses. It can't possibly be just about The Court Circular.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is also possible that all patronages -except a few with a true nationwide meaning or a strong personal commitment- will be laid down. This happened in the monarchies with a new King. In the Netherlands the argument even was used: "The new King wants to be inclusive, to reach out, to bind and to connect. Having patronages for specific organizations does not fit in this new approach." In Belgium and Spain the Kings have no specific patronages anymore because of the same idea: when a King is a patron of a hunting club, this is not binding, this is dividing society. It will be interesting to see how Charles and especially William think about a monarchy anno 2031 with 700 patronages, if that still is something to desire for.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think both Beatrice and Eugenie are pretty happy with the way things are right now. They do what they want to do under their own terms. We have to remember too that these are two young women in their 20s that have the probability of marriage and family in the not so far off future.

As it stands right now, they're actually private citizens that just happen to have the Queen for their grandmother. They have their own career ventures. They have their own private lives which they really don't have to answer to anyone for. They do have their own specific charities and patronages that they took on basically just because they wanted to and they were important to them. They support their father and their mother in different ventures.

Unfortunately, they do get a lot of bad press and are seen as "party" princesses which actually is no one's business what they do with their private times. The public purse doesn't pay for any of it. The Sovereign Grant and the Queen don't pay for any of it. Andrew shoulders the cost of their protection. Both of the girls, in reality, are down to earth young women that seem to have a full life and do give back when they can.

In my eyes, its very possible that if asked to be full time working royals, they very well could turn it down and prefer the lives they have now. These two women have the best of both worlds both royal and private. They may be totally happy with things exactly the way they are now.

Just my thoughts.
 
I agree with you. The princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are with one leg in the monarchy because their grandmother/uncle/cousin is (will be) the monarch. But most likely they will marry "commoners" and their children will not have a title. With the advancing of times, when Prince George and Princess Charlotte have come in their teens and twenties, probably Beatrice and Eugenie will be out of the picture. Maybe we will not even see them anymore at the Trooping, as Charles seems not to be so positive about a balcony crammed with "royals": the focus will be on the core royal family: the new King's children and siblings.
 
If you are using the example set on the balcony during the Diamond Jubilee, I think that it doesn't point to Charles and how he wants his monarchy to be but rather it was done for the purpose of showing the continuity of the monarchy by just having the direct line to the throne present.

I imagine this year we'll see extended family members on the balcony for Trooping the Color. We just need to remember that the monarchy and the direct line to it is a totally different beast than the extended family and/or the working "Firm".

Beatrice and Eugenie are still somewhat immediate family as they are the granddaughters of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh but in time, they will be extended family members much like the Linleys and the Chattos are now. It happens as time passes and the family branches out.

We have to remember also that what is presumed that Charles wants is just that. A presumption. He's never stated publicly what he wants his monarchy to be like.
 
William, Kate, Harry, and Andrew will have to step up to the plate. Philip and Elizabeth's daughter, Anne is just like her parents. Very hard-working royal. She does a lot of royal duties and engagements.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will have to do some duties soon. They can't be party girls forever. They will have to prove to their uncle Charles and step-aunt-by-marriage Camilla that they can be future royals of duty. They have their own coats of arms for God's sake.


Beatrice and Eugenie are not "party girls", or at least no more than any person of similar age is entitled to be. They both have university degrees and careers, which, like everybody else's career, sometimes go well and sometimes not so well. Furthermore, the main reason why they don't do more royal/public work is that they have never been asked or allowed to do so.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think both Beatrice and Eugenie are pretty happy with the way things are right now. They do what they want to do under their own terms.


Eugenie may be, but I think Beatrice has been drifting for quite some time. She is said to be building a business, but I doubt that will amount to much.
I think she is one royal who would truly love to be part of The Firm.

Instead of Andrew as the Queen's plus one, why not Beatrice?
 
I think it would be wonderful if that was to be the case. Then again, Beatrice herself may not want to be officially part of the working "Firm". We really have no idea as she's never said anything publicly about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom