Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 9,127
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
Personal thoughts on the recent deluge of criticism of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie:
I am sure Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have taken advantage of networking opportunities offered by their father, and that their royal status has benefited their careers.
I think it is fair to criticize some of their decisions, such as conducting business in countries controlled by dictatorships which disdain human rights.
So far, however, I see no proof that the York sisters are more morally compromised or greedy than other non-working royal family members with their own private careers.
I am also sure that the careers of Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, the Earl of Snowdon or Sarah Chatto have benefited from the royal luster and elite social networks they can access as children of senior royals and grandchildren of monarchs.
And I think if Andrew Lownie applied as much effort to scrutinizing Peter/Zara/Snowdon/Sarah's careers and lives as he does to the York sisters', he would almost certainly unearth similarly "scandalous" material.
For example, Peter Phillips' milk commercial years ago was only considered newsworthy because of how obviously it traded on his royal status. But that commercial was made to air in China, a country also ruled by a dictatorship with an egregious attitude towards human rights.
Fortunately, the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret did not ask their adult children to accompany them on a visit to Jeffrey Epstein. But if they had, is it truly safe to assume that (unlike Beatrice and Eugenie) their children would definitely have said no to their mother?
For now, my impression is that the more extreme forms of negativity towards the York princesses are (even if certain criticisms are justified) occurring mainly because of who their parents are, not because the York princesses are uniquely evil compared to their cousins.
I am sure Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have taken advantage of networking opportunities offered by their father, and that their royal status has benefited their careers.
I think it is fair to criticize some of their decisions, such as conducting business in countries controlled by dictatorships which disdain human rights.
So far, however, I see no proof that the York sisters are more morally compromised or greedy than other non-working royal family members with their own private careers.
I am also sure that the careers of Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, the Earl of Snowdon or Sarah Chatto have benefited from the royal luster and elite social networks they can access as children of senior royals and grandchildren of monarchs.
And I think if Andrew Lownie applied as much effort to scrutinizing Peter/Zara/Snowdon/Sarah's careers and lives as he does to the York sisters', he would almost certainly unearth similarly "scandalous" material.
For example, Peter Phillips' milk commercial years ago was only considered newsworthy because of how obviously it traded on his royal status. But that commercial was made to air in China, a country also ruled by a dictatorship with an egregious attitude towards human rights.
Fortunately, the Princess Royal and Princess Margaret did not ask their adult children to accompany them on a visit to Jeffrey Epstein. But if they had, is it truly safe to assume that (unlike Beatrice and Eugenie) their children would definitely have said no to their mother?
For now, my impression is that the more extreme forms of negativity towards the York princesses are (even if certain criticisms are justified) occurring mainly because of who their parents are, not because the York princesses are uniquely evil compared to their cousins.