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

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Not open for further replies.
Let's not stray from the topic of the thread.....duties of Beatrice and Eugenie.
I'm not sure when you went to Oxford, but trust me i've done my research on university's and what I wrote it pretty damn accurate. The past, is the past. ;)
A good few years ago, Lumutqueen. But I can tell you this, Oxbridge employment figures today for new graduates are far, far higher than for overall non-oxbridge graduates. That's a fact. Indeed, even today, one of my old employers still automatically bins non-Oxbridge applications. Snobbish and shortsighted in my opinion, as it may well be cutting out a good pool of talent, but an Oxbridge degree is seen as better by most 'blue chip' companies than Goldsmiths. Beatrice - and in due course Eugenie - are always going to be at an advantage because of their royal connections, but even Beatrice's 2:1 degree would not help many 'lesser mortals' without experience at the moment.....

You may not know this yes you are right in saying that. :) But my point still stands, whatever trust fund B&E have received or shall receive can be used as they wish at their discretion.
Only insofar as the terms of the trust allow this. And this is law, not discretion........
Last edited by a moderator:
On the contrary, Lumutqueen, Oxbridge degrees occupy the top of the firmament in the UK and the world. A recent top level survey included Cambridge and Oxford in the top ten universities in the world along with Harvard, Yale, Stanford and several other top flight US institutions. The only other university outside of the US on this stellar list is the University of Tokyo. As an academic, I know that the University of London is a fine institution (Goldsmith's being one of the U of L colleges, along with the London School of Economics), but it is not Oxbridge. And that exists today and not just in the past. I am very familiar with the way hiring goes and a Harvard, Yale, Oxford or Cambridge degree will trump just about anything else anywhere in the world.

Quite right, this is not a matter of personal opinion, it is a fact.:flowers:

At least Charles and Andrew are discussing it.
I forget where, but I did read that Beatrice has been very disappointed that she may not be a working Royal.

I still say she should be given a chance: a few engagements, with strict orders to keep Mummy far far away.
See how she conducts herself before kicking her to the curb. If it doesn't work out, her first appearance can be her last.

I actually think her taste in hats is an asset; it's raised her profile to the point where she's instantly recognizable! If I were Beatrice, I'd wear an outlandish hat on every possible occasion to raise my profile even further. That way people will look forward to seeing her.
Honestly, I don't think he is saying anything that hasn't been discussed here or in the Daily Mail before.

Looks like he 1) had some space to fill in his columns and couldn't find out any other dirt) and/or 2) its been ahwile since the ususal nastiness was said about the York Princesses so why not write an article that says nothing and is about nothing and call it day.

And as usual, the regular DM contributors have nothing nice to say about them. I wonder if any of them live beyond reproach and if they would like it if THEIR children were judge by THEIR actions.

Probably not.
That's a bad article. Bad, bad, bad. It may be true, but it doesn't need publishing. Pitting Charles and Andrew is very bad form. I, personally, do not think either princess is worried about what they are going to "do."

As for that remark about Chelsea Clinton being in the news all the time...well, maybe somewhere, but not in her own country. Chelsea, apart from her ghastly, expensive wedding, has never been news fodder.
I actually think her taste in hats is an asset; it's raised her profile to the point where she's instantly recognizable! If I were Beatrice, I'd wear an outlandish hat on every possible occasion to raise my profile even further. That way people will look forward to seeing her.
Actually, that could work. After every engagement she can auction them off for charity.
If people in the BRF are really looking to Chelsea Clinton as a comparison--as the article states, then that is really dumb. Chelsea ended up in a career in finance, which was high-paying and fit with her top-tier education at Stanford. Beatrice and Eugenie aren't even on that level, education-wise, and their degrees would never net them a huge salary to live as they are accustomed. They have their titles and they are just going to have to fit into the family in some way, unless they marry wealthy men and just do charity work.

It's looking increasingly foolish that someone like Beatrice isn't being used far more, especially since William and Harry are tied up.
A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this. Under English law, Trusts are private and the terms of the trust are governed by a Trust Deed, which is a private legal instrument. Generally, there are two elements to a trust, income and capital. There are very often restrictions on the use of both income and capital. It is common with some trusts to prevent the beneficiaries accessing the capital until they are 25 years old or so. We don't know what the terms of Beatrice and Eugenie's trusts are. There may well be strict clauses about use of the money - athough thanks to Sarah, we know that apparently the restrictions on the use of trust income were lax enough to allow Sarah to 'leech' [as the papers put it] off her daughters' trust funds. I believe Lord_Royal is a solicitor; perhaps he could help us with English Trust law if he drops by here.

Indeed, I am. The trust for Beatrice and Eugenie that Sarah has spoken of is the one made for them by The Queen when Andrew and Sarah divorced. Now, something murky happened in the late 1990s regarding the 500,000 pounds budgeted for a home for Sarah and the girls (the house in Windlesham was said by Sarah to be too expensive to run, so a house was never purchased) and I recall Sarah had a meeting with the trustees of the the B&E trust. I wonder if that 500,000 was added to the trust. ANYWAY...

There is usually two components to a trust: income and capital, both of which can be managed by the terms of the trust. From various articles we know that 1.4 million pounds was put into trust in 1996. Since that time the money has surely generated a substantial income. The trust instrument would explain if and how that income could be spent, the lifespan of the trust and other conditions. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no way to discern what the trust says since it is a private document. What can be said, without hesitation, is that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie cannot do as they please with the trust money, they will always have trustees to answer to.

However, the trust will be wound up (as all trusts have a determined lifespan, they cannot go on indefinitely) and at that point the Princesses will have free reign over their funds. Additionally, Saunders v Vaughtier tells us that an adult can collapse their trust at will. As both Princesses are over the age of 18, this may have occurred.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Andrew and Sarah Divorce Trust 1996 is not the only trust B&E are beneficiaries of. The late HM The Queen Mother established trusts in 1994, totaling 19 million pounds (the vast majority of her cash) for the benefit of her grandchildren so that none of them had to pay any taxes or duties.

So there are certainly two trusts that benefit the York Princesses. There could be as much as 6 million pounds of capital in The Queen Mother 1994 trust for the York girls. We'll never really know.

They should focus on charity and enhancing their image. The role Princess Alexandra fills would be ideal for them.
If people in the BRF are really looking to Chelsea Clinton as a comparison--as the article states, then that is really dumb.

It's comparing apples and oranges.
Unless the name is Kennedy, children of a president will fade into obscurity the moment he leaves office.
How often are the Bush girls or the Fords in the media? Very rarely.
(I couldn't even say what the names of Obama's daughters are).

But the Queen doesn't leave office. ;)
Children of the President, in opposite to Children of the Monarch, are private persons.
Obama girls' names are Malia and Natasha.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, they're Malia and Sasha.

I daresay, the minor-aged children of a President are more known to the general public - think the Nixons, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, the Bush twins, and now the Obama girls. When the children are already adults with their own lives, careers and families, they are pretty much left alone by the media. They're treated like a President's siblings or parents and are not going to be in the media spotlight unless they themselves are noteworthy... Think President Obama's brother-in-law, who is the Head Coach of the Oregon State men's basketball team. Robinson is interviewed on a regular basis but that comes with the job and while there are some occasional articles here and there that ask about Obama, they're generally few and far between because it has nothing to do with his job. But the rest of Obama's relatives and in-laws? Couldn't name them if I tried. And the only reason I know about Robinson is because I happen to live in Oregon, lol.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sasha is short for Natasha, which is her given name.
Sasha is the nickname of Natasha, her full name is Natasha Obama. Her family just calls her Sasha the same way HRH Prince Henry is always Prince Harry. :)

The Bush twins were only more known to the public because of their own actions while Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter were at an age where were pounded on by the press for going through a normal ugly duckling phase and having no interest in official occasions at the White House respectively.

The Nixon girls were the same ages as the Johnson girls when their fathers were president and the two reasons why Tricia and Julie are known more are: the Checkers speech when they were children and Tricia's wedding at the White House.

When it comes to the president, he (hopefully she one day) is the only one that matters, his family is not a part of the presidential "firm" so to speak. That is not the same in a royal family. As has been mentioned before, Beatrice will almost certainly be a Counsellor of State during the early years of Charles' reign. That means something and I think it would be a very diplomatic compromise if Beatrice were given the chance to participate more in royal activities and have Eugenie be given more freedom in finding her own job.

Just MHO :flowers:
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay...lets move on from US Presidential children.
The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Prince Charles dislikes the York girls' taste and has mocked them, according to the reporter's "usually reliable" source. In fact, the headline says Charles called them 'twits.'

Many apologies if this story has already been discussed (I got bogged down in reading about the presidential children and didn't see any mention of it right away):

There has been a lot of discussion about how Beatrice should become a working royal and it is probably correct that is what the Duke of York wants for her. But is that what Beatrice wants? At the moment she really does have a very nice life. She can travel when she wants, attend the social and charitable events of her choice, has a wealthy boyfriend. And has the freedom, within limits, to live her life as she chooses.

Does Beatrice really want to give that freedom up? Royal events are planned a long time in advance. It's probably often pretending to be interested in something that completely bores you, making small-talk with people that you don't know, smiling like you're having a wonderful time even if you are freezing cold and your feet hurt. Sarah never cared for being a working royal...it may not appeal to Beatrice either.
If the story is true, it puts the Princesses' Uncle Charles in a very bad light.:ermm: Really, from the comments they've said on camera, they really don't seem like twits at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the story is true, it puts the Princesses' Uncle Charles in a very bad light.:ermm: Really, from the comments they've said on camera, they really don't seem like twits at all.

Does it really? Not that we can verify the veracity of the purported statement, but even if Charles did make the comment, he probably has a lo tmore to base his opinion on than either the Press or any of us who do not really know the York girls intimately.
I am sure they are using the same sources that have told InTouch and Us Magazine that the Duchess of Cambridge is preggers. . . :whistling:
Last edited by a moderator:
The "rift" between the brothers has been going on for some time now. It could be Andrew is the "usually reliable" source and is using his daughters as a wedge.
Goes without saying, but Andrew is the bitter one of that duo, don't you think? What with all the stir he caused with his "job."
I doubt that a Pulitzer-prize winning newspaper is using the same "usually reliable" sources as US magazine.
Regarding the article with Prince Charles referring to the girls as twits, we can likely take it with a pinch of salt. We know the Royal brothers do not always necessarily get along, and during certain periods of their life have had rifts with each other. I don't, however, think Charles would call his nieces "twits" in public to members of the press. I could be wrong in thinking that though...
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know about Charles calling them twits, but I wouldn't be surprise to find that some other royals look down at Beatrice and Eugenie. They seem vulnerable to mocking and it's not necessarily their fault
The article about Charles and the York Princesses is all gossip at this point, most unfortunate given the upcoming Diamond Jubilee.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom