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

[O-H Anglophile]

Will Princess Beatrice step up and take on royal responsibilities?

She hasn't been asked, as far as we know.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Lately we’re beginning to see more of Beatrice and Eugenie.
I know they won’t be full time royals, but i think it’s very likely that they’d be part time royals - something like Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

I don’t know why, but as the Queen is aging, I see her giving some of her patronage’s to her York granddaughters

Interestingly I think we are seeing less of them. They aren't doing as many things that would be associated with the family - charities etc as in the past. They usually attend about 5 - 10 official engagements a year between them and 2019 saw them do 8 (Beatrice 3 and Eugenie 5).

Eugenie is spending her time working and settling into marriage so we occasionally see some picture of her attending a restaurant with Jack or something similar but not at a 'royal' type event.

Beatrice also seems to be taking fewer 'holidays' (in other words she is going to fewer events overseas for Affiniti which the media dubs 'holidays' as well as actual holidays).

I do think we will see less and less of them, now that Andrew is no longer a working royal.

I am wondering whether the idea that not being a working royal equally no HRH as applied to Harry and Meghan will also extend to Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie and the Michael's of Kent. If it does then Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie will be able to slip under the radar even more.

 

[DuchessMia]

I agree. We have seen less of them, and that may be the natural order of things. Eugenie is married. Bea is engaged and charting a new path for her life.

 

[royal-blue]

Would others agree that Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, Meghan, and Prince and Princess Michael are all now in exactly the same situation when it comes to their official status in the BRF?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Would others agree that Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, Meghan, and Prince and Princess Michael are all now in exactly the same situation when it comes to their official status in the BRF?

No I wouldn't.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Neither would I.

 

[Countessmeout]

Interestingly I think we are seeing less of them. They aren't doing as many things that would be associated with the family - charities etc as in the past. They usually attend about 5 - 10 official engagements a year between them and 2019 saw them do 8 (Beatrice 3 and Eugenie 5).

Eugenie is spending her time working and settling into marriage so we occasionally see some picture of her attending a restaurant with Jack or something similar but not at a 'royal' type event.

Beatrice also seems to be taking fewer 'holidays' (in other words she is going to fewer events overseas for Affiniti which the media dubs 'holidays' as well as actual holidays).

I do think we will see less and less of them, now that Andrew is no longer a working royal.

I am wondering whether the idea that not being a working royal equally no HRH as applied to Harry and Meghan will also extend to Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie and the Michael's of Kent. If it does then Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie will be able to slip under the radar even more.

Beatrice and Eugenia last year inbounded have continued to do a great deal if charity work. The only time it's gets Royal nod us when Andrew is involved or something like Ascot. With Andrew out of the picture that lowers its

Harry and Meghan are still HRH Duke and duchess, they simply can't use it in their business life. Well the HRH and for Harry the prince. In no way have they been demoted to lord/lady. No reason to think that Beatrice and Eugenie would be demoted to lady. Or Princess Michael, her and her husband have been private citizens from the start.

Beatrice still travels for work and pleasure quite a bit. The difference is there is no interest so the papers don't publish. All the focus is on Hary drama. The York girls can thank him for that as their fathet scandal woukd likely draw them into the press more and more.

Beatrice travels plenty. Only makes news when there is some way to spin it as a holiday. Eugenie as well for her gallery.

Other then the heir and heirs heir, royals only make the news when there is a dramatic spin to be had. Beatrice and Eugenie are becoming the boring married royals. Just like the wessexes and Anne, even when they do charity and if they pick up Royal work, likely will get little notice.

 

[Betsypaige]

Robert Lacey seems to think Beatrice and Eugenie are the natural successors to Harry and Meghan.....but, this seems pure speculation (logical, because help is needed). Would they want to step up? I imagine so - and I don't think people would hold their father's actions against them.

“It’s quite clear that one of the consequences is that Beatrice and Eugenie will now be brought forward — if they’re willing to be brought forward,” said Lacey.

“If two go out, two have got to come in, and those two have got to be Beatrice and Eugenie. I’m sure they will step forward and be greatly welcomed. It’s what the family needs as it’s another 15 years before Prince George’s generation steps up. It’s ironic that Harry mentioned his cousins as models of how he wants to be.”

https://foxwilmington.com/headlines...ses-beatrice-and-eugenie-royal-expert-claims/

 

[muriel]

Robert Lacey seems to think Beatrice and Eugenie are the natural successors to Harry and Meghan.....but, this seems pure speculation (logical, because help is needed). Would they want to step up? I imagine so - and I don't think people would hold their father's actions against them.



https://foxwilmington.com/headlines...ses-beatrice-and-eugenie-royal-expert-claims/

I do not think BEatrice & Eugenie will be brought forward. Instead, IMO, Edward and Sophie will start to do higher profile engagements.

 

[Lilyflo]

I doubt they'll go "on the payroll" as working royals. All polls have shown for years that the British public want a smaller working group based on the core family so it would be madness to add two of the Queen's grandchildren. That's without getting into the risk of their mother exploiting every opportunity to expand her own profile. (I retyped that last sentence a few times to keep it polite - the British public won't be as restrained).

 

[Denville]

Robert Lacey seems to think Beatrice and Eugenie are the natural successors to Harry and Meghan.....but, this seems pure speculation (logical, because help is needed). Would they want to step up? I imagine so - and I don't think people would hold their father's actions against them.



https://foxwilmington.com/headlines...ses-beatrice-and-eugenie-royal-expert-claims/

No, I don't think Charles would want to use them.. and if they DID ever fancy a life as working Royals, I think they've now given up on the idea and probably don't want public exposure at this stage

 

[Pranter]

Yeah I lean toward it will be The Wessexes brought forward as opposed to The York girls...we don't even know if they would want to do it, but if you believe the rumor about the slimmed down monarchy then it's very unlikely we will see the York girls even as part time working Royals.


LaRae

 

[Betsypaige]

I do not think BEatrice & Eugenie will be brought forward. Instead, IMO, Edward and Sophie will start to do higher profile engagements.

I had originally thought that as well........still possible, of course.

Yeah I lean toward it will be The Wessexes brought forward as opposed to The York girls...we don't even know if they would want to do it, but if you believe the rumor about the slimmed down monarchy then it's very unlikely we will see the York girls even as part time working Royals.

Edward being over a decade younger than Charles is an advantage now, seriously - because although Charles is in great health, he's in his 70's. Queen needs help now, but I'm thinking further down the line as well. And, if he and Sophie get involved, perhaps their children will too.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt that they would bring forward Louise and James and ignore the two princesses. At the same time I don't think they will use the York princesses at all. It is clear that the British public simply don't like them and they BRF would be stupid to replace the much loved Harry with a loathed York and the media have ensured that the York girls are despised at best.

 

[poppy7]

I doubt that they would bring forward Louise and James and ignore the two princesses. At the same time I don't think they will use the York princesses at all. It is clear that the British public simply don't like them and they BRF would be stupid to replace the much loved Harry with a loathed York and the media have ensured that the York girls are despised at best.

The York girls are not disliked. I don't think most people have an opinion or can even tell them apart really. The are just kind of clumped together and called the princesses. They are fine. People would accept them being more high profile.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I doubt that they would bring forward Louise and James and ignore the two princesses. At the same time I don't think they will use the York princesses at all. It is clear that the British public simply don't like them and they BRF would be stupid to replace the much loved Harry with a loathed York and the media have ensured that the York girls are despised at best.

Would it be considered disrespectful if Lady Louise and Viscount James would be brought forward for royal duties instead of Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice?

 

[Denville]

The York girls are not disliked. I don't think most people have an opinion or can even tell them apart really. The are just kind of clumped together and called the princesses. They are fine. People would accept them being more high profile.

No, they're not much liked. They have the baggage of being the children of Fergie and Andrew..and not much else is known about them...I don't think they would be taken on as assistant royals. The word was that Andrew wanted them to continue to have tehir PO's and to do royal work but Charles wasn't having it... Now Andrew is more deeply unpopular than ever....

 

[Lumutqueen]

No, they're not much liked. They have the baggage of being the children of Fergie and Andrew..and not much else is known about them...

Who are they not liked by? The minority of the daily mail readers who take a snapshot given to them by the vicious reporters who will do anything for a story?

Yes, that’s the entire population of the United Kingdom...

 

[Lilyflo]

Edward being over a decade younger than Charles is an advantage now, seriously - because although Charles is in great health, he's in his 70's. Queen needs help now, but I'm thinking further down the line as well. And, if he and Sophie get involved, perhaps their children will too.

The Wessex children will never be working royals. They'll be private but titled citizens like the Kent & Gloucester offspring.

I doubt that they would bring forward Louise and James and ignore the two princesses. At the same time I don't think they will use the York princesses at all. It is clear that the British public simply don't like them and they BRF would be stupid to replace the much loved Harry with a loathed York and the media have ensured that the York girls are despised at best.

The York Princesses aren't loathed or despised at all. Many people are just indifferent to them. The current YouGov ratings* for them show similar figures for 'positive' & 'negative'. The highest figures are for 'neutral'. https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all

* data collected between January 2019 and January 2020

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Princesses can go the way it works in many monarchies: to pursue an own life and career but occasionally attend royal gatherings (The Trooping, State Visits, etc.) or do occasional public appearances, often linked to personal interests. For these incidental "duties" their costs are reimbursed by the King.

In the Netherlands Princess Margriet or Prince Constantijn, or in Spain the Infanta Doña Elena, or in Norway Princess Astrid and Princess Märtha Louise, etc. never received an income as royal. However they are reimbursed for costs they make for their "royal function". They are provided tranportation, logistics, facilities, accommodation, security, staff, etc. for their occasional royal "duties".

I fail to see why this would not work in the UK. I believe the use of Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael is more or less comparable with the named examples: no income but reimbursement of costs and all possible support by the royal household services.

 

[Betsypaige]

The Wessex children will never be working royals. They'll be private but titled citizens like the Kent & Gloucester offspring.

* data collected between January 2019 and January 2020

Why can’t they ? Let’s face it, the BRF needs support - it has to come from somewhere. If not the Wessex children or the Yorks, who?

 

[Denville]

Why can’t they ? Let’s face it, the BRF needs support - it has to come from somewhere. If not the Wessex children or the Yorks, who?

They'll just step up the Wessex's working and cut back on a few things. Sophie and Edward didn't want their children to be royal, so I doubt if they'll want them to take on royal workl

 

[QueenMathilde]

I wouldn't mind it if Beatrice and Eugenie stepped forward. I never liked their parents much (and I think Andrew should be stripped of at least his HRH) but I like the girls. I think they have as much charisma as Harry and Meghan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The York girls are not disliked. I don't think most people have an opinion or can even tell them apart really. The are just kind of clumped together and called the princesses. They are fine. People would accept them being more high profile.

I have spoken to many British people over the years and loathing for all of the Yorks is the best opinion anyone has of them. The idea of either of them being asked to represent the UK just isn't on as far as any of those I have spoken to - friends, family and total strangers alike. Scroungers, wastrels, brain-dead are the most positive comments I have heard them called even in a crowd of monarchists. I have never spoken to a British person who has a good word to say about either of them - the DM and the rest of the media have done their work well.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Would it be considered disrespectful if Lady Louise and Viscount James would be brought forward for royal duties instead of Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice?

Absolutely

Beatrice and Eugenie are higher in the line of succession and they are princesses.

Louise and James are not royal (and I have had that confirmed in person by Buckingham Palace as noted in the letter I have copied into this site about the titles of the Wessex children).

It would take a reversal of the Queen's will as stated in 1999 to create Louise and James as a Princess or Prince and that would seem counter-productive when the royal family is supposed to be reducing its size.

It should also be noted that if the royal family needs help it is now not in 15 or so years when Louise and James will be old enough (given that 30+ is now the age when BRF members are being asked to work for The Firm).

The BRF doesn't need any more people than it has doing royal duties. It needs those younger ones - the Wessex's and Cambridge's to do the same amount as Charles and Anne (6 people doing 500 each = 3000 and the total for last year was about 3400).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Why can’t they ? Let’s face it, the BRF needs support - it has to come from somewhere. If not the Wessex children or the Yorks, who?

How do Germany, France, the USA, Russia, China, Italy etc. do it without children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, uncles and aunts of the head of state?

With other words: the number of royals is never a necessity but always a choice. Buckingham Palace's balcony is almost overcrowded with all possible folks and that is a choice. There is no need for a Princess Anne or for a Prince Harry. Otherwise, how could a Trump or a Putin do it wirhout a sibling or a grandson?

It is not that the Show Pony Association, the Dogs for the Deaf, the Airlander Club, the Galloway Cattle Society or the Hallamshire Cutlers collapse because royals do no 300+ "duties" a year anymore.

The Queen started in 1952 and in fact a structural, way overdue, change has never been made. Meaning that it is up to Team Charles & William to rethink and revamp the monarchy for the decades to come.

 

[Betsypaige]

They'll just step up the Wessex's working and cut back on a few things. Sophie and Edward didn't want their children to be royal, so I doubt if they'll want them to take on royal workl

Thanks! Well, cutting back on a few things would be awkward. Which ones - and how do you justify it? Such is the consequence of Harry and Meghan's split. I guess until Spring it won't be a problem, so there's time to try and figure this out.

 

[Betsypaige]

How do Germany, France, the USA, Russia, China, Italy etc. do it without children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, uncles and aunts of the head of state?

With other words: the number of royals is never a necessity but always a choice. Buckingham Palace's balcony is almost overcrowded with all possible folks and that is a choice. There is no need for a Princess Anne or for a Prince Harry. Otherwise, how could a Trump or a Putin do it wirhout a sibling or a grandson?

It is not that the Show Pony Association, the Dogs for the Deaf, the Airlander Club, the Galloway Cattle Society or the Hallamshire Cutlers collapse because royals do no 300+ "duties" a year anymore.

The Queen started in 1952 and in fact a structural, way overdue, change has never been made. Meaning that it is up to Team Charles & William to rethink and revamp the monarchy for the decades to come.

I saw this after I had made my last post...I don't know, I'm not familiar with other monarchies, how many engagements they have, etc...

I disagree about Harry - well, now it's moot, but before Megzit, he was always going to be part of Charles' slimmed down monarchy. I hate to see it slimmed down to remove Anne or Edward myself, but that's me being sentimental, lol.

Well, you're right - and perhaps they should all start thinking about this now.

 

[Mbruno]

How do Germany, France, the USA, Russia, China, Italy etc. do it without children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, uncles and aunts of the head of state?

.

The Head of State in most republics is not a patron of dozens of social, cultural, scientific and sports organizations as the royals are. A non-executive president only has to carry out the official duties that the Queen does in the UK with respect to the government and the legislature and, sometimes, even less than that (the German president for example has fewer official duties than the British monarch).


Sometimes, the so-called First Lady is responsible for some of the social work that the royals do in the UK, but that happens mostly in the US and in some Latin American republics (not in Europe) and the First Lady usually concentrates on bigger umbrella initiatives rather than individual patronages like the royals.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is also easy to forget that the monarch of Great Britain is also the Head of State of 15 other independent countries AND heads an organisation that represents around one-third of the world's population in the Commonwealth. That is why the BRF does need a few more workers than other royal families and republics but six to eight should be able to do it all. They don't need 15 or so as they have now.