Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie 2: Discussion Sep 2022 -

[Alison H]

I don't see why they should drop their titles. Plenty of people have titles. No-one would suggest that, say Lady Kitty Spencer start calling herself plain Mrs Lewis.

 

[sophie25]

I would not be surprised if William tidies the title thing up within the family when he becomes King, which could mean B and E becoming ladies like Louise. I think it would make a lot of sense.

 

[duke of poliganc]

Then why have monarchy at all? If a monarchy is not about having a royal family but only a monarch then what is the difference between having a monarchy and a republic?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Then why have monarchy at all? If a monarchy is not about having a royal family but only a monarch then what is the difference between having a monarchy and a republic?

Replied in Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits to avoid going too far off topic:

The difference between a monarchy and a republic is that in a monarchy, sovereignty resides in the head of state, whereas in a republic, sovereignty resides in the in the people collectively.

The head of state's family having, or not having, an official role is not part of the definition of a monarchy or a republic.

Vatican City and Andorra for example function with only a monarch (Vatican) or diarchs (Andorra), but without a royal family.

I don't see why they should drop their titles. Plenty of people have titles. No-one would suggest that, say Lady Kitty Spencer start calling herself plain Mrs Lewis.

I can’t speak for @royal-blue, but from my observations, it seems like most royal watchers who would like the non-working royals to drop their royal titles would be content with them having non-royal titles such as Lady and Lord, since, as you point out, non-royal titles of nobility are relatively common.

That's not going to happen. We have to see titles as more than just someone actively representing a royal house, but also as something that comes from birth as members of a royal family.

Holding a title means simply that you are related to a monarch it doesn’t mean that you are a working royal, it not like a public office where your title is lost when you step down

This is a legitimate point of view, but it should be noted that in practice, it hasn’t been applied in the British monarchy since 1917, when King George V decided to limit royal titles to a small fraction of the many people who were/are born or married into the British royal family.

 

[tommy100]

I'd be surprised if William starts stripping titles from anyone under his reign. It would look particularly mean spirited - especially in regards to Beatrice and Eugenie who have done nothing wrong other than have bad parents. I think the most we might see under William is a limiting of titles - no titles for Archie and Lilibet's spouse (Archie) and children (both). I can see him changing the rules so HRH can only pass down the direct heirs line (e.g. William's line, George's line and George's eldest child's line).

 

[Somebody]

As the above does not address the duties and roles of the princesses but titles, I've responded in the titles-thread.

 

[Hallo girl]

Then why have monarchy at all? If a monarchy is not about having a royal family but only a monarch then what is the difference between having a monarchy and a republic?

There would still be a royal family, but problems do arise when individuals with titles do not have a working role within the family and they try establish a career.

 

[Somebody]

There would still be a royal family, but problems do arise when individuals with titles do not have a working role within the family and they try establish a career.

I responded to the link between title and career in this thread: Earning a living as a non-full time royal

 

[tommy100]

I think Beatrice and Eugenie will carry on as they are - having their own working lives and occasionally stepping in at larger royal events in a supporting role.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think Beatrice and Eugenie will carry on as they are - having their own working lives and occasionally stepping in at larger royal events in a supporting role.

Might not the revived attention and opprobrium on their parents prompt the king to try to exclude the daughters from the family limelight as well, as some royal watchers predict and/or hope?

 

[tihkon2]

Might not the revived attention and opprobrium on their parents prompt the king to try to exclude the daughters from the family limelight as well, as some royal watchers predict and/or hope?

I agree with Tommy. Probably just stay with the status quo. I don't think Charles or William will do anything. I think most people realize the women are not responsible for their parents' appalling behavior. I didn't see any large scale indignation from the UK press when one or the other of the princesses attended a Buckingham Palace garden party a few years back. And that was after Andrew's debacle.

 

[Toledo]

I'd be surprised if William starts stripping titles from anyone under his reign. It would look particularly mean spirited - especially in regards to Beatrice and Eugenie who have done nothing wrong other than have bad parents. I think the most we might see under William is a limiting of titles - no titles for Archie and Lilibet's spouse (Archie) and children (both). I can see him changing the rules so HRH can only pass down the direct heirs line (e.g. William's line, George's line and George's eldest child's line).

I doubt he would do anything negative toward his first cousins Beatrice and Eugenie, they have no part on their parents shenanigans. In some way, they seem to be the 'sisters' William can relate to the most as everyone Windsor ages in life. They all grew near each other and, except for Harry, that bond seems stronger now they all have their own families to care for.

So no princely titles to be strip in my opinion. The California cadet branch of the Windsor clan is a whole different story, and so are Beatrice and Eugene's parents. The first ones might be retitled, Denmark style, whether Harry approves or not. The later, Eugene and Beatrice's parents, I doubt it but I see eviction notices in my crystal ball

 

[tommy100]

I think Charles and William are able to differentiate between the issues with Andrew and Sarah and the fact their daughters have done nothing wrong.
Ironically it is William, often said to be the one who wants to take a firmer line with Andrew and Sarah, who has been seen to invite Beatrice and Eugenie to official events to help out (and yes the first time he did was well into the Andrew scandal). I don't think their role will go beyond that - helping out when there are large scale events that need a few more royal hands but I do think William will call on Zara, Peter, Beatrice and Eugenie when needed.

 

[Somebody]

I doubt he would do anything negative toward his first cousins Beatrice and Eugenie, they have no part on their parents shenanigans. In some way, they seem to be the 'sisters' William can relate to the most as everyone Windsor ages in life. They all grew near each other and, except for Harry, that bond seems stronger now they all have their own families to care for.

So no princely titles to be strip in my opinion. (...) The later, Eugene and Beatrice's parents, I doubt it but I see eviction notices in my crystal ball

It seemed William used to be closer to Peter and Zara, while Harry was closer to the York sisters. So, I'd say, if anyone would be considered a 'sister', it would be Zara (and Pippa).

 

[tommy100]

Yes I think William was and is closer to Peter and Zara and their families. I suspect part of that might have been the fact that growing up Highgrove and Gatcombe are close to each other while the York girls were in Berkshire.
Nevertheless I don't think William has much of an issue with Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[Kenya]

I agree. I remember reading that before the official premiere of Mission Impossible 7, which William and Katherine attended, William was granted a private screening, to which he invited Beatrice and Eugenie, among others. There have been other indications over the past few years that William gets along with them quite well, regardless of his feelings about their parents. I don't imagine that he would strip them of their titles or even keep his distance from them as things currently stand.

 

[TLLK]

Yes I think William was and is closer to Peter and Zara and their families. I suspect part of that might have been the fact that growing up Highgrove and Gatcombe are close to each other while the York girls were in Berkshire.
Nevertheless I don't think William has much of an issue with Beatrice and Eugenie.

I tend to believe since William is closer in age to Peter and Zara, that he gravitated towards them when they were children/teens/young adults.

However since the majority of the late QEII's grandchildren are in their 30's, 40's and 50's now and have children, they have more in common with each other.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A newly released email backs up what Buckingham Palace (in 2011) and TRF's own @Iluvbertie stated about Princess Beatrice not being informed she was excluded from being a working royal, until she graduated university:

Thanks to TRF’s invaluable archives, I found this report by the very careful Richard Palmer in the Express from the time of Beatrice’s university graduation (September 9, 2011).

Princess Beatrice graduates as proud Andrew and Fergie look on

PRINCESS Beatrice, wearing a cap and gown, took part in her graduation ceremony at Goldsmiths College in London today.

www.express.co.uk

An excerpt:

“Friends have suggested that she will eventually plump for a job in the fashion industry or perhaps fine arts but royal sources have said they have been given no real indication yet where her career plans lie.

Buckingham Palace has also declined to say whether the Princess, who lives rent free in a taxpayer-funded four-bedroom apartment at St James’s Palace, will ever become a full or even part-time working royal, undertaking official duties on behalf of the Queen.

Royal sources have long suggested that she does not figure in the family’s future plans for official duties amid claims that Prince Charles is keen to see a slimmed-down monarchy.

A palace spokesman said today: "Princess Beatrice will over the coming months broaden her knowledge and experience to complement her position as a member of the Royal Family.

"This will involve undertaking a number of internships to develop her experience, particularly in business and philanthropy. She will also continue to be involved with her existing charitable interests and look to progress this work into other relevant areas."”

[...]​

So, publicly, the Palace and their “royal sources” were giving mixed signals about Princess Beatrice’s future at the time of her university graduation university in 2011 - refusing to answer the question about whether she would be a working royal, but “suggesting” behind the scenes that the royal family’s future slimmed-down official duties would not include her, but then also stating on the record that her planned internships were meant to “complement her position as a member of the Royal Family” (as opposed to complementing a future job in the private sector).

One hopes Elizabeth and Charles provided Beatrice with clearer feedback behind closed doors. If their communication with Beatrice was as muddled as their communication with the media, she could hardly be blamed for being confused.

I wonder if perhaps Elizabeth and Charles were not of like mind about Princess Beatrice’s future. That could explain why the on-the-record palace statements and the anonymous “royal source” comments seemed to be in conflict.

It was reported in 1992, after the first meeting of the now defunct Way Ahead Group meeting that Charles wanted a slimmed down royal family, including the idea that Charles wanted to strip the York princesses of their HRH Princess styles - limiting HRH Prince/Princess to the children of the heir apparent in each generation only. The Queen stopped that.

It was also reported that Beatrice asked her grandmother, uncle and cousin whether she would be wanted/needed as a working royal at least 4 times during her education (at the times she needed to make choices about what to study) and each time she was told she would be similar to Princess Alexandra. However shortly after she graduated from university (college in the UK is not the same thing and can, in fact, be a high school e.g. Eton is a College but there are also post school colleges that largely deal with technical and trade education - to refer to university as a college is insulting to that institution in the UK's education system) she was told she wasn't going to be wanted or needed. That was a few weeks after William and Catherine married. She has since added additional training courses, that she would have done if Elizabeth II, Charles III and William had been honest with her in the first place (my sources for this come from personal contacts as well as what was reported in the media and the so-called 'royal experts'.

Eugenie was told right through her education she needed to plan for a career as she wasn't going to be wanted or needed.

On May 8, 2011, "Melanie" (apparently a close friend of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and Sarah, Duchess of York) wrote to Jeffrey Epstein:

"Stuff bad for A's girls. Got royal protection taken away. Queen said np royal list, get a job. S has a specific question for you. A is sad and frustrated. Considering abdication but he's like a zoo animal, no way esp now for him to thrive. I took my laundry to their house yesterday they were a little shocked. I hope that wasn't rude. A said yes, but S wasn't amused. I needed yoga clothes."

Age Verification | United States Department of Justice

www.justice.gov

Age Verification | United States Department of Justice

www.justice.gov

(Melanie also discusses her belief that a disgruntled employee of Andrew was leaking to the Daily Mail and that Andrew's phones were bugged.)


I am not sure if "A is sad and frustrated" means Andrew was sad and frustrated over his "girls" having their royal protection taken away and being told to "get a job", or is referring to Andrew being sad and frustrated over the upcoming loss of his own position as trade envoy due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein. The second seems more likely to me.


On December 9, 2016, the Duke of York released a statement saying in part:

"There is no truth to the story that there could be a split between the Prince of Wales and I over my daughters' participation as Members of the Royal Family and any continued speculation is pointless.

As a father, my wish for my daughters is for them to be modern working young women, who happen to be Members of the Royal Family, and I am delighted to see them building their careers."

Loading…

d2jhuj1whasmze.cloudfront.net

I think it was rather irresponsible on the part of Queen Elizabeth II to not inform her granddaughter(s) of whether she would be a working royal or work a private job until Beatrice was almost 23 years old.

 

[BriarRose]

I’m not sure why Andrew’s opinion on what happened, as communicated through criminals, should be taken as factual.

It seems far more likely to me that Andrew and Sarah were informed multiple times that their daughters were unlikely to be full time working royals, and they ignored that and assumed they could change Elizabeth’s mind. It was just in 2011 that they came clean with their kids about the truth known to many others and discussed widely in the press.

I wouldn’t trust Andrew and Sarah to know the truth of anything if it bit them.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To clarify, the then Duke of York's friend "Melanie", who wrote the email, has not been accused of criminal behavior.

I certainly understand reservations about taking the Duke's (secondhand) word at face value. However, as of September 2011 (see the news article posted abovethread), "Buckingham Palace has also declined to say whether the Princess [Beatrice] will ever become a full or even part-time working royal".

Buckingham Palace was (supposed to be) beholden to Queen Elizabeth II, not to the Duke of York. If the Queen had already decided against Beatrice becoming a working royal but did not let the Palace confirm that to the media, out of some wish to spare the Duke of York's feelings, that would also have been an irresponsible choice.

ETA: Actually, that does appear to have happened in any case: According to the email, the decision was made at the latest by May 2011, yet in September 2011 Buckingham Palace still refused to confirm it to journalists.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I would like to see Princess Beatrice and her husband and Princess Eugenie and her husband continue to participate in future Royal Ascot processions.

 

[sophie25]

I would like to see Princess Beatrice and her husband and Princess Eugenie and her husband continue to participate in future Royal Ascot processions.

I really doubt this will happen now. Andrew Lownie said there is a lot to come out about B and E and its not good. Not to do with Epstein but more profiting from their status, especially in the Middle East. Lownie has predicted a lot of things that turned out to be true so I wouldnt be surprised.

 

[Curryong]

I agree. It’s now, in 2026, a different world. The York Princesses have kept their courtesy titles, for now. But if too much else comes out about them then I’m afraid they will have to be persona non grata as far as being at events like garden parties and Ascot with senior royals.

In many ways that’s quite unfortunate, but you are the company you keep in the public’s eyes. The sisters are happily married, mothers, remain close to each other, have sufficient money. They will probably see their father and mother when they wish to. Private life shouldn't be hard for them.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In a poll conducted 18-19 October 2011:

20% of Britons agreed that "Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie should take on formal roles in the Royal family and carry out Royal duties".

53% of Britons agreed that "Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie should not carry out any formal Royal duties, and should instead follow ordinary careers".

Older people were much more likely to agree they should follow ordinary careers (70% of those aged 60+ agreed, while only 34% of those aged 18-24 did).

Brits say ‘no’ to Royal roles | YouGov

53% say princesses Beatrice and Eugenie shouldn’t take on royal duties, 20% say should

yougov.co.uk

A side note: The YouGov article continually refers to the princesses as "girls", though they were 23 and 21 at the time.

 

[royal-blue]

I have never been more convinced that the Princesses should relinquish their titles. They aren't needed by the working royal family and never will be.

 

[tihkon2]

I have never been more convinced that the Princesses should relinquish their titles. They aren't needed by the working royal family and never will be.

Nah. Hard disagree.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I don’t think there is any reason to do anything at all right now with Beatrice and Eugenie that could be felt or percived as negative and as a degradation.

Their presence doesn’t disturb anyone and they are under an enormous emotional pressure both of them right now as things already are.

Now is not the right time to punish them too.

 

[Durham]

I have never been more convinced that the Princesses should relinquish their titles. They aren't needed by the working royal family and never will be.

I tend to agree. I think they'd be happier in the long run to be honest. The styles & titles are millstones they'd be better off without.

My (admitedly unprovable) instinct is that people would think of them more as (relatively) ordinary, certainly as private, individuals. At the moment I feel as though they're neither fish not fowl.

 

[eejm]

I have never been more convinced that the Princesses should relinquish their titles. They aren't needed by the working royal family and never will be.

Based on what we know right now, I don’t think that’s warranted. While their parents’ behavior has been deplorable, their daughters shouldn’t be punished for it. If word comes out that B and E behaved criminally or unethically, then perhaps additional action would be appropriate.

If B and E did not participate in any serious wrongdoing then I think the two could potentially be working royals at some point. However, I don’t think it’s possible or advisable for several years even if Charles did want them to do so (and he doesn’t).

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

I think rather than take an ad hoc approach, their titles should be removed now along with anyone else not serving the Crown. No point having princes and princesses in private practice. Who knows what money making schemes are in the future. Better to be safe than sorry.