Charles and Andrew are still at odds over Beatrice and Eugenie

Charles and Andrew are still at odds over Beatrice and Eugenie

Camilla Tominey over at the Sunday Express has a new article about the war between Prince Charles and Prince Andrew over Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie having a public royal role, and now apparently they’ve dragged the Queen into it.

According to Tominey, Andrew wants his daughters to have a taxpayer-funded royal role and accommodation at Kensington Palace, while Charles wants to have a smaller public royal family going forward, leaving the York princesses to fend for themselves. And apparently they’ve now dragged the Queen into it, but of course she handed it off to someone else to deal with because burying her head in the sand is how she deals with conflict.

    “THE Queen is at the centre of an extraordinary row within the Royal Family over whether the Duke of York’s daughters should become full-time members of ‘The Firm’. Prince Andrew wants Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie to be given taxpayer-funded royal roles and new accommodation at Kensington Palace but the move has been blocked by Prince Charles. The 90-year-old monarch has been caught in the middle of the royal rift and has been at such a loss over what to do about her warring sons that the Government has had to help smooth things over.
    “The row escalated after Andrew, 56, wrote to his mother demanding that Beatrice and Eugenie carry out full-time royal duties supported by the Sovereign Grant – the public purse which funds the Royals’ work. The letter, originally drafted by the Duke’s private secretary and ‘gatekeeper’ Amanda Thirsk, complained that the princesses were in danger of being overshadowed by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry when Charles becomes king. It demanded that his daughters, who are seventh and eighth in line to the throne, be given better accommodation at Kensington Palace instead of having to put up with ‘small’ apartments at St James’s Palace.
    “A source said: ‘Amanda originally drafted the letter and couched it in very reasonable terms, but the Duke did not think it made his case strongly enough so tore it up and put pen to paper himself. He believes his daughters are already being overshadowed by William, Kate and Harry and the situation will get worse as Prince George and Princess Charlotte get older. He has long argued that as the only ‘blood princesses’ in the family, Beatrice and Eugenie deserve proper royal roles like their cousins, along with the same standard of accommodation at Kensington Palace. He fears that they will be totally sidelined when the Queen dies.’
    “Her Majesty was apparently so stunned by the letter that she felt unable to reply and handed it to her private secretary Christopher Geidt to deal with. He raised the matter directly with Charles, who suggested someone in Government should break it to his younger brother that while he will continue to play a formal role in the Royal Family in the future, his daughters will not. The heir to the throne, 67, wants a more ‘streamlined’ monarchy with only William, Kate and Harry taking centre stage at major royal events.
    “A source said: ‘The Prince of Wales is already conscious that he divides opinion more than his mother. The last thing he wants is additional criticism by keeping peripheral royals on the public payroll.’
    “His austerity-driven approach is understood to have already caused friction with the Earl and Countess of Wessex, who both gave up careers to become full-time working royals. In order to preserve their status in the royal pecking order, behind palace gates the Queen has decreed that Prince Edward will inherit his father’s title as the Duke of Edinburgh when the time comes. Princess Anne is less put out because her children Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall do not have royal titles and have pursued their own careers. Andrew, Anne and Edward have grown used to taking a backseat at major royal occasions, like the Diamond Jubilee, when only the socalled ‘magnificent seven’ appeared on the Buckingham Palace balcony – The Queen, Prince Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Harry and Kate.
    “Beatrice, 28, and Eugenie, 26, are both university educated, charming girls who are very popular within the royal fold. But other than accompanying their father on the occasional royal engagement, they have not been encouraged to take on royal duties but to carve out careers for themselves instead. Despite starting four different jobs in the past five years, Beatrice announced in July that she was stepping down from full-time employment to ‘pursue her entrepreneurial ambitions’. In between ‘exploring her career options’ the sun-worshipping royal has enjoyed a string of luxury holidays. Between December 2014 and December 2015 the princess racked up 18 foreign jaunts, including a trip on Roman Abramovich’s £1.5billion super-yacht in Ibiza. She broke up with Dave Clark, her boyfriend of 10 years, over the summer. As this newspaper exclusively revealed in August, Eugenie is keen to settle down with her boyfriend of six years Jack Brooksbank and as a concession to Andrew’s demands, the couple have been given a cottage at Kensington Palace which is currently undergoing renovation.
    “They plan to announce their engagement in the coming months and a royal insider said Eugenie was keen to settle down and start a family. ‘I’m not sure carving out a career is her top priority,’ added the source. The sisters have been trying to raise their profile, meeting Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this month to discuss modern slavery. Last week Eugenie recorded a video for the Salvation Army to highlight the plight of trafficking victims and the week before she and Beatrice joined the Prime Minister at a Westminster Abbey service for William Wilberforce, who led the movement to abolish the slave trade. It came after Beatrice recorded a podcast for the Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre, of which she is patron, to raise awareness of the condition with which she was diagnosed aged seven.
    “In 2010 the princesses were stripped of their 24-hour police protection because of the £500,000 annual cost. The move came months after Andrew was forced to step down as the UK’s special trade envoy amid criticism of his links to shady Middle Eastern leaders and the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The Duke fought ferociously for the protection officers to stay, arguing that his daughters should be treated differently from other minor royals because they enjoy HRH status. But his argument failed because their cousin Zara has no bodyguards, even though she has a higher public profile as an Olympic silver medallist.”


Two quick notes: Beatrice was not at the Westminster Abbey service with Eugenie, and I cut out the end of the article as it moves to talk about Sarah.

The article is interesting… in that it’s not that interesting. We’ve heard that Charles and Andrew are at odds over Beatrice and Eugenie’s royal role for a while now, so that’s no revelation. We’ve also heard before that Andrew was upset that only Charles and his family were on the balcony for the Diamond Jubilee, and that there is friction between Charles and Edward and Sophie over their future roles within The Firm. And, I mean, this supposed letter Andrew wrote to HM can’t be the first she’s hearing about this disagreement between Charles and Andrew as we’ve heard about it for years now.

The thing I actually find the most interesting is about Eugenie’s future: “I’m not sure carving out a career is her top priority.” I’m curious, because if carving out a career is her top priority and instead wants to be a wife and mother (which is totally fine if that’s her choice), then who’s going to be paying for her? She has her own trust fund and whatnot, and Jack has a job, but is that enough to fund their lifestyle? Would Andrew be spending some of his money paying for Eugenie and her family? Is this why Andrew wants Eugenie to have a public royal role, so that she can do a few royal duties here and there and spend most of her time raising her family while the public pays for it (like Kate)? I’ll be very interested to see what happens with Eugenie once she marries and starts to have kids. Will she quit her job at the art gallery, or will she continue to work? Hm…

204 thoughts on “Charles and Andrew are still at odds over Beatrice and Eugenie

  1. This is interesting, and I think this kind of conflicts, either inside of the royal families or with the taxpayers, will arise more and more in the future. If I remember correctly Andrew gave up his army career much in the same way Harry’s done now, and Andrew’s role was never clearly defined. I seriously hope Harry will avoid that! In the future we are likely to see Charlotte in a similar situation unless she’s strong enough a character to carve her own path. I’d be curious to know what Bea and Eugenie think. What do they want? They’re lovely young women and clearly willing to help their grandparents and dedicated to their charities, but I’ve never thought they are longing to be full-time royals. But if this rift between the brothers really exists, it makes me feel Charles has high hopes to establish Kate as the only “princess” of that royal generation. In my eyes that is difficult as Kate is simply not up to it. Yesterday I came across some article in which the photographer – if I remember correctly it was the photographer – talked about the Vogue shoot and said Kate is willing to do her bit but prefers her family and countryside to the royal role. Of course it wasn’t that Kate said that herself, but I think this attitude shines through her actions, and I just have to ask since when have a sense of duty and your love for family needed to exclude each other in the world of a modern woman? Just like Kate I have a daughter and want to show her different roles can be embraced and balanced.

    1. The same thing happened with Margaret. It’s the same thing that always happens with the “spare”. Hopefully Harry and Charlotte will avoid the mistakes of the past “spares”.

      Re Charles potentially hoping to establish Kate as the only “princess” of that generation: I wonder what will happen when Harry marries. Will she have a public royal role or be a private citizen with a proper job? Will she get to be a “princess” like Kate or no?

      1. Yes, it definitely happened with Margaret, but I think it was not questioned in the same way as it was a different era and I guess it was – and maybe still is – common that daughters of the upper class did not have to really think what they would do in life. But we definitely see that even Carl Philip of Sweden and Joachim of Denmark suffer from not having defined roles. Joachim’s farming business has been a complicated one although he was encouraged by his parents, and the public does not seem to take CP’s artsy activities very seriously.

        1. Well, I think that Bea and Eugenie just live the ‘British Upper Class Girl Lifestyle’ where they attend great schools, go to university and then do not really ‘work’ (of course Eugenie has a job at the art gallery) in the way as ‘normal middle class’ people do, working 35-40 hrs a week in an office or sth. similar. They do like internships and stuff but pretty much are mostly socialtes until they find a rich upper class man to marry and have kids.
          Diana had a job in a kindergrten before marrying. At that time, it was common for young upper class ladies to work a bit with kids before getting married and having kids herself.

          I don’t think that only Bea (seriously, 18 vacations? That makes Kate look like someone who NEVER goes on holiday lol) and Eugenie live this lifestyle, but many aristocratic/upper middle class young ladies. Simply because they can afford it and because it is more fun if you do not have to work 40hrs/week but can go to parties and meet with your social circle instead.
          Unfortunately, I think this way of life will not change in the near future.

          1. It may be a common lifestyle, but Andrew seems to want it funded by the British taxpayer. We really don’t know what the girl’s want.

            I wonder just how large Andrew’s personal fortune is. He has certainly spent like a wealthy man. I think the deplorable incident between Sarah and the fake sheik was not a terrible mistake, but business as usual with at least this family. I wonder if it might not extend to the rest of the BRF, at least at the periphery.

            Eugenie and Bea may have trust funds, but I doubt either would stretch to even a modest cottage at KP, or an apartment in St. James Palace. At least the girls who married in lived in flats paid for by themselves or their families before marriage.

            I think money issues will put paid to the extended BRF and Charles is fighting to retain at least his own family. After the Queen goes there may be a serious re-evaluation which includes an honest accounting of royal finances.

            It’s too bad that the princesses are caught up in this. If they were smarter they would ask their parents to let them be adults, work for their charities and fly under the radar. They can be princesses without public funding.

          2. My only comment here is that 18 holidays is an exaggeration. The media took weekends away with friends, overseas accompanying her father, and legit holidays and wrote up an article that said Beatrice is always on holiday. They included visits with her family eg when she spent a birthday weekend in NYC with Eugenie who was living there as part of holiday package.

            Firstly, the Yorkies have international friends. The family also own a ski chalet in Switzerland.

            Beatrice took a few weekend getaways to the family chalet which were billed as ‘holidays’ implying she’s spent weeks at a time there.

            She also attended several foreign weddings including one for the Millionaire David Tang’s daughter in Shanghai where he flew all his friends into China for the wedding weekend.

            She accompanied Andrew to the Middle East for royal business and extended her stay to take in the grand prix at which her boyfriend AND Harry were both present.

            She’s besties with Abramovich’s wife. Wife invited her twice for a weekend stay on their yacht

            She took two annual week-long yacht holidays with her boyfriend every year for the past 10yrs – one to south of France and the other to the caribbean.

            They also threw in the christmas at Sandrigham annual event as part of her holiday tally.

            The press has done such a good job of misrepresenting the girls that people just look at ’18holidays’ written up in the most toxic way possible, and assume this to be true.

            Yet if you look at the detail, it doesn’t hold up.

            And as for their charity work, they do that without public funding, so they are demonstrating their usefulness without official backing.

          3. Thank you HeraZeus. The constant bashing of the Yorks, with incorrect information, is such an ongoing problem. If it is published in the DM, it is taken as “true” when you’ve successfully debunked their 18 holidays lies.

          4. Beatrice and Eugenia are stuck between a rock and a hard place, in my opinion.

            I would love to be the proverbial fly on the wall every day with the merry Windsor family, and hear and see the “real truth.”

        2. CP’s artsy endeavors are mostly designs stolen by other people. He and wife need to be cut off from taxpayer funding pronto.

          Joachim’s farm was something he was given as a kid, but he was never given the option to say, “No, I do not want to be a farmer.” He tried for years, was a lousy farmer, was caught doing illegal fertilizer importing, and finally sold the millstone around his neck. Now he and Marie have the most private wealth in the Danish Royal family.

          Hasn’t the DRF already stated that only Christian will be a working royal and the other three children of Fred and Mary will be private citizens making a living?

          1. Given Andrew’s unsavory friends, it may have been paid for by one of them. Fergie who keeps claiming to be poor paid half? Far more likely someone else paid for it. I do not expect B&E to inherit debt.

    2. A couple of my cousins went on their senior HS trip to England and Scotland. On arrival they were made part of a group that had student travelers from S Africa, Oz, NZ, Canada, England, Scotland, Germany and Italy. The initial trip itinerary was 7 days covering the major sites in and around London. An additional 10 days were added if their school district would accept a ‘study’ portion guided by accredited university professors. My cousins worked to pay this additional cost and they had assignments and reports to write as part of a World Governments class. About half the group continued with members from Canada, NZ, Oz, Scotland and Germany – most being from Commonwealth countries.

      Several times over the course of the basic trip and the extended trip the group had opportunities to see HM, PC&DC, W&K. They declined because the focus of the trip was to learn about the English government and the procedures adopted by their governments influenced by inequities in English laws. Visiting the museums, Parliament, the depositories of government documents were more important. Yes, they did visit royal gardens to relax, the Tower of London (more unnerving than they thought it would be), the zoo for distraction, and spent a weekend in Berkshire to see the exurbs of London.

      I write about this because my cousin was beside herself when she found out that all of her photos from this trip, stored in a ‘cloud’ storage system, had been lost. She was devastated. This trip had fed her college interest in government (a minor in her degree) and the photos helped her recall important moments. The photos were functional as a journal to her. Ask her about a photo and she would expound on the place and the purpose of its importance. She didn’t recall that I had downloaded her camera card to my computer when she wanted to free space to take photos for another event and was in a hurry. I wrote all the photos to a CD, twice, so they wouldn’t be lost and gave a copy to her. She was relieved and I was happy that she hadn’t lost her an important part of her experiences and education.

      My point is that this important trip discovering the origins of her country’s government had little to do with the current royal family. She can tell me more about the ramifications of eliminating the BRF from the perspective of government that I can hope to understand. She can also tell me how her fellow travelers felt about the BRF (she still writes to some of them) and their attitudes today. The BRF is not important in a modern world for her generation. The aristocracy would lose position (no BRF, no aristocracy?) but it opens up the country in a way that all of its ‘colonies’ have enjoyed. The land underlying your house would be yours, and not some leasehold from a dukedom. Huge swathes of land would revert to ‘public’ ownership by local government, available for use by or sale to citizens. The government would be less medieval and more modern when monarchy has been removed as part of government.

      She and the friends that accompanied her on this trip (they are still friends and visit often) think that William and Catherine are doing as little as possible to fulfill their roles. These ‘kids’ work, pay off their college loans, live at home temporatily with mom and dad but pay room and board, set aside money to move out and have an apt of their own, keep up with local and national politics, vote, and are inclusive about socializing with all ages of the friends and family group. Their OZ, NZ and Canada travel-mates think that W&K ought to bail out, take their inherited money-jewels-lands and stop pretending to be royal. That generation has no respect from this HS travel group.

      I’ve sponsored one of the travelers from her HS group. She has graduated from college and has found a job in a transnational company that has her traveling back and forth from London. She is happy with the job. A Canadian cousin helped another one of the group find a job in Toronto and she is satisfied with her job experiences in Canada and thinking about becoming a permanent resident. It’s the commonwealth or the ties to friendly countries that matter to the younger generations. The BRF, not so much.

      This post is probably too long. The younger generations don’t seem to be as invested in the BRF. It is an anachronism. They should not have as much influence or call on the public funds as they do. When that realization becomes most important is not predictable. The BRF will crassly ride that pony until its dead. Because they can. The current younger BRF members will do all they can to forestall the inevitable. IMHO.

      1. I’d guess that that group’s perceptions are pretty consistent with the thoughts of others and not only of their generation. No-one thinks too much about royals on a day-to-day basis, but when they stop to scrutinise more closely, come to the same conclusions as that group of Commonwealth scholars. The innate unfairness of hereditary anything flies in the face of the idealism of modern democracies.

      2. It’s frustrating that she lost all her pictures. There’s nothing worse than losing all that precious personal history that means so much to ourselves.

        Some people go on these trips for purely functional reasons, others like the idea of royalty or enjoy meeting them. Both are valid because it’s an individual preference. I personally think royalty can have a modern role to highlight charities and help keep the important cultural ties between people alive, especially in this day of internet, rapid growth, and multiculturalism. This forum largely weighs that positive view while analyzing whether royals are living up to that standard or if they are coasting on the coattails of taxpayers.

        Every human being that has someone in their life who’s saved, built, or done things that bring advantages to their children can be accused of “unfairness.” The only thing I’ve ever found truly unfair is when children are punished for their parents sins, much like the York girls have, as well as millions of “nonroyals” everywhere.

  2. They could, of course, work and pursue careers S well as carry our Royal Duties voluntarily. I don’t think that is quite what Andrew means, however. Is he worried the Royal Family won’t be able to do all it needs to, without the princesses? Or is it just about status, money and pri life without the responsibilities. Andrew seems to be all about the rights; forgetting the corresponding duties. The Princesses seem like very nice girls, but their father…

    1. Andrew wants the money for his kids of course, after all he and Fergie have been sketchy with cash for a while. That said, Kate is not Diana and merely accompanies Will to events wearing expensive designer outfits at each occasion. She is not the workhorse Diana was for the various charities and patronages and with the Gloucesters and Kents inevitably having to slow down too, just who exactly will be taking over everything ?

    2. Since it’s Andrew, I think it’s probably about status more than anything. He wants for his daughter what the status being HRH should in his mind give them.

      1. I think many senior royals who have never lived in the “real” world fail to see the titles can be a great burden. They can bring pressure from public to lead a public life and mean one is not taken seriously if you want to have a career as many view royals as just a privileged bunch of people who can’t achieve anything themselves. That is why I don’t think it was very wise from Carl Gustaf to give titles for Madeleine’s children. He should have let them lead the normal life Madeleine clearly wants for them.

        1. Good point. If Anne’s kids had titles, I bet they would be included in this fight too. But since they don’t, and were raised to be independent (for the most part) they are doing better then their generational counterparts.

        2. I agree, Grace. I think it would be wise of Harry to keep his children styled as Lord and Lady instead of Prince or Princess when Charles eventually takes the throne. I’m sure he will instill a work ethic in them, as he clearly has one himself and HRH titles will only be a burden for them. I believe Sophie has even admitted that she knows her children will need to get real jobs and that’s why they try to give them a “normal” upbringing.

          1. On the other hand, titles mean high status, many connections, endless freebies and financial “help”, happy forelock tugging, and faux importance. It also means that by default they are smarter than us, better looking than us, morally superior to us and mentally healthier than us. They are even more fragrant than us. Their mere presence brings illumination. I doubt that carrying a title is that much of a burden.

            The bottom-line is, the entitled always have a *choice*.

          2. To respond to Maven, only because people suck up to them. I’ve seen the same thing here in the US, with people groveling at a celebrity’s feet, acting ridiculous to get insider treatment. I’m too proud. I can’t do it, and I would never want anyone to treat me like that. I would instantly distrust someone who sucks up, but I know it’s how a lot of climbers get ahead. I guess I’m going to have to be fine right where I’m at.

    3. There’s a big conflict of interest problem that comes in if they try to work a real job and be official government representatives. Remember Sophie and the way she was targeted for a sting? That was when she was running her business and doing 200+ engagements a year. And all kinds of people are already gunning for the Yorks.

      Take Sofia for now. Rumor is she has a friend who is in the shoe business. Sofia is wearing her friends shoes, promoting them with her government job fame. That is bad enough. But what if Sofia is also an investor in that firm? Then we get into some serious legal tangles.

        1. It is like Sofia and CP insisting on staying on the royal payroll, but starting those businesses on the side (What exactly does Sofia know about business consulting and fashion?). She even used the Palace address and royal advisors as part of the business founding.

          If the BRF only needs 6 people, Sweden certainly doesn’t need more than 4. Sofia and CP are going to end up like Inaki and Cristina if they aren’t cut off from the taxpayers and sent off to private life soon.

          1. There’s something about Sofia just seems shady. I’ve read many in Sweden feel she chased and married CP for the prestige of it. To use as stepping stone to better her on business ventures.

      1. They should all go to a school for ethics and learn about the concept of “conflict of interest” among other things. And then try to live an ethical life instead of a greedy one.

  3. If Will and Kate worked harder then Andrew has less of an argument. As it is, the lazy duo barely do anything and when the Queen and Prince Phillip have to slow down, who will be taking over? Charles and Camilla already have busy schedules.
    And if true, it is good timing on Andrew’s part because Will and Kate were not superstars this time around in Canada even with the kids whereas Beatrice and Eugenia have been seen doing real charity work without getting new outfits at every turn.

    It is more curious that the story gets leaked to the press now.

    1. I actually think it will be the Queen’s cousins slowing down which will affect things more. They do hundreds of engagements between them each year. With them gone, there are hundreds more engagements that could be done. So HM or Charles could give Bea and Eugenie those engagements.

      I was also wondering why this story got leaked now. Like, what’s the play here. Why now?

      1. To be honest The Express always has bank of Royal, Diana and impending natural weather disasters for quiet news days. It’s a bit of a standing joke in this country. When all else fails The Express will run a story on one of these three. I wouldn’t read too much into the timing. Just light on big headline breaking, copy selling this weekend. Xx

    2. I think Kate and William have yet to establish their role (if they are ever going to is another story), and Charles, Camilla and Anne are not going to be any younger either. What do we have left of the royal glamour and values (meaning duty) if what we have left after Charles is a middle-aged couple hiding in Norfolk? Public wants more. Is it George and Charlotte they’re counting on? Is Harry, and the wife he hopefully finds to start his own family with, expected to be at his brother’s beck and call to keep up the public profile of the royal family? I’m sure these issues will be risen in the future as we have seen the British public question many established institutions lately. In a way I see there is a point in not having a huge royal family, but since the family needs to be seen and has to give back to society by engaging in charities etc, a very small nuclear family can’t do that. It would take enormous effort from the monarch and his spouse, and since Kate and William have hardly showed interest in public service yet, I doubt they will suddenly show such characteristics when the time comes. It seems the whole family should seriously think about what is expected from them and understand that the monarchy in an ivory tower no longer serves the people it is supposed to represent.

      1. I see a lot of potential conflict down the road when Harry eventually gets married. I can only imagine that the woman he marries will be a hard worker. I don’t see him respecting a lazy, entitled, woman like Kate enough to marry her. Therefore, she may naturally outshine Kate (unless she is constantly attacked by the media like Bea and Eug, which would be so sad for Harry). I could see it being in W+K’s best interest to shuffle Harry and Mrs. Harry out of the spotlight as Harry is already more likeable. Just imagine when he has his own children to dote on…so much swooning.

    3. I think too it’s curious this story popped up now. Maybe Harry has discussed some plans of his? Or does the press want to draw attention to the fact the Queen is 90 and won’t be around forever?

    4. I agree.

      The Princesses would be dedicated to HM and the Monarchy and be there for and helping Prince Harry . Harry cannot do it all and is the only one in his Line generation, serious and dedicated about the Monarchy.

      Its all well POW is protecting his popularity, but note his age and he seem to have no control over his lazy entitled, whiny son family and the middletons.. If they can spend millions on the middletons the Princesses should have roles!

      The Monarchy Duchy wouldnt be spending much more than whinly b&w, carol luxury entitled lifestyle – private jets, millions on palaces/AH, etc for this family of four +the middletons. What if the past month has made whiny to decide if he prefer to head back to Anmer forest.

    5. Just menting their trip to Canada do find it strange that not long after their trip. Canada is thinking of changing their Bank notes to remove HM, Charles & Successors from their notes. All so with so much talk of more commonwealth countries wanting to become a republic. I could really see The BRF end after HM passes. It seems to be heading that way. Maybe they know something we don’t know and that’s why the younger Royals aren’t putting in the hours. Who’s to say this is what Charles wants to cut back on royal duties after HM is gone.

  4. I really don’t think its fair on taxpayers if Beatrice and Eugenie become full time royals. Yes, I do want their charitable events to gain more coverage then what it’s getting now, but do they need to be full time royals to do that? Can they not work part time and also help out in these causes? If these 2 do become full time royals, tax payers would have to fund not only their lifestyle but also the lifestyle of their husband and kids. Is this fair on taxpayers? Absolutely not! Who knows how much more they have to shell out to the royal family? Like some of the others have said, I think this has got to do with Andrew’s need for status.
    And I have a question. Since Eugenie and her boyfriend were given that cottage at Kensington Palace, are tax payers paying for their stay at the cottage? I hope not, considering she isn’t a full time royal

    1. I think you hit the nail on the head. I think times have simply changed so much that no taxpayer would be willing to pay for a very big royal family, particularly if what the family does doesn’t add any value – meaning if it doesn’t help charities or strengthen the brand of Britain.

    2. +1.

      I remember reading Eugenie would be paying “market rent” for the cottage. If this is true, I wonder where will she get the money to afford it. Probably from Andrew, which would make it taxpayer funded?

      1. As much taxpayer funds are funnelled to the royals, they also come with private family money. Every person who has married into the family has brought money into it which has been left to future generations. There are also sycophantic friends who left fortunes to various members of the family in order to carry favour for their familes eg the infamous Mrs Grenville who left the Queen Mother a fortune in jewellry – Camilla frequently wears the grenville tiara, but also bequeathed Princess Margaret £100K. She died in 1942. Imagine what a fortune that was in 1942. The royal family invedtments would have made that swell to a huge sum. By comparison, Diana’s £17M divorce settlement was nurtured into a £30M investment shared by William and Harry.

        One can argue that they keep their private wealth because they use taxpayer money rather than their own money, but they are independently wealthy of the tax money and that doesn’t always mean that the wealth came from the taxpayers.

        1. I’m not sure which married-ins brought serious money. Albert was poor, Alexandra’s family was poor, Mary’s family was debt-ridden and dependent on family gifts. Queen Mum was second to last child, and a girl, so not sure how much she would inherit from family, Phillip had nothing. Diana did have a legacy from her Grandmother (I think) but again, a girl so if estate was entailed she wouldn’t get much. So money seems mostly from the monarchy. I do wonder if the Greville bequest to the Queen Mum included money as well as jewels, which I understand were a private gift and could be sold.

          1. The foundation of their wealth remains the duchy of Lancaster which was brought into the royal family when the future Henry 4 married the daughter of the Earl of Lancaster. He got wealth and title.

            They tend to bring in wealth not cash and that wealth grows substantially eg Philip may have been penniless, but he inherited his mother’s diamonds, some of which went into the Queen’s rings and the tiara that Zara used for her wedding – the tiara was inherited intact, to be clear. On the open market, it’s priceless.

            There are very few consorts that have contributed nothing to the royal coffers. The most recent consorts ie starting with Albert, tend to be the only consistently non-contributors.

            Prior to the Saxe-coburg-gotha age, only Elizabeth Woodville, consott of Edward 4, springs to mind.

            Regarding Mrs Greville’s bequests, rumour has it that she did leave money as well as jewels to the QM though the money part remains unsubstantiated. She’s clear is that she left cash to Margaret and Jewels to QM.

          2. I didn’t go back far enough, and I forgot their idea of poor may not be ours. I guess I wish I could be jewelry rich while still “penniless”.

          3. Correction: Lancaster was brought in by John of Gaunt’s 1st wife Blanche, daughter of the 1st duke of Lancaster (1st creation) who had no sons. Henry 4 was their son.

      2. I’ve also wondered how they will pay a fair market price. I think this all is very dependent on what Andrew’s actual net worth is. His financials are precarious at best. I would assume Andrew is paying for most of it because there’s no way Eug’s job pays that much. But seeing as Fergie has been leeching off Andrew for years, I really wonder how much he’s worth at this point. What will happen when Charles takes the throne and perhaps decides he doesn’t want to support him anymore?

        1. And who’s determining fair market value? The wessex’s pay £90,000 a yr for their place and Andrew essentially pays nothing for the Royal lodge since he paid for the renovations.
          I’d like to get an independent view of how much it costs vs what she’s really paying

          1. I think he paid millions up front for the lease, plus putting 7+ million of private money into renovations.

            A similar deal happened with Thatched Cottage. Ogilvy paid a million up front for the lease (don’t know what that is in today’s money) and paid all the renovations himself.

            The Kents lived (rent free?) at Anmer for 20 years before purchasing a private home.

    3. I don’t think taxpayers would extend to their children.

      Look at the Queen’s cousins, the Kents and the Gloucesters. All came on board after empire yet are kept very busy at royal duties inspite of their failing health. Throw in HM’s own children +spouses and you can see how much work is available.

      The 16realms + commonwealth ( not an inherited position, but HM is seeking to change that) need more than 4 people. 2 of the 4 are workshy and with no discernable intentions of stepping up to the plate. Harry is increasingly working on his personal charities and GC can’t work for another 18yrs so it’s going to be a very limited number of people.

      The trimming should be cousins’ children as HM has done whilst keeping the cousins on the front line. In the same way, BE would help in the same way that the Kents and Gloucesters do, but their children would be cut. The line would naturally trim itself every generation whilst maintaining the required hands on deck.

      1. I agree, Herazeus. It would be in Charles and William’s interest to keep up a good relationship with Bea and Eug and use them for some of the minor events as the Gloucesters and Kents age. If there’re no royals to do all of these ribbon cuttings and hospital visits, it’s going to be very hard to maintain goodwill towards the family. The Queen herself knows these visits are the bread and butter of the firm.

        I would love to see Bea+Eug have some part-time role. I mean, Kate is really part-time when it comes to how many hours she puts in and she gets a full lifestyle funded. I think if Bea and Eug did a few days of events a month, the sort of minor events that K, W, C and H don’t do, they could get apartments in Kensington and some stipend, but not the full whopper of benefits. Then everyone wins.

      2. The BRF collectively perform over 3200 engagements a year, plus Charles spending loads of time with Prince’s Trust, Duchy, running Sandringham and Balmoral on top of that. And Harry with Invictus and Sentebale, most of which isn’t counted in engagement totals.

        3200 engagements and 6 people? It is possible, but only if W&K do a minimum of 600 each a year. Does anyone see that happening?

        The rumor that they don’t want to do “ribbon cutting” and the bread and butter engagements? These are the things that keep royals in the public eye and liked, even when it is illogical to keep royals. If W&K keep hiding away, acting like Howard Hughes, and refusing to do regular engagements? The end of the BRF will be during Charles’s short reign. Not because of Charles, but because of W&K.

        1. WK would faint at 200 nevermind 600!!

          Also, don’t forget the tours to the realms. That’s 3200 engagements plus tours to various countries annually.

          1. William would have no hair and his teeth would be stumps from all the jaw clenching. Kate’s manic faces would be real from the reality of having to be out in the public eye so often and interacting with people. Or she’d just crumple to the floor one day.

    4. I think Bea does her charitable work because she enjoys it. There’s always a light in her eyes and happiness on her face. She’s poised, articulate, and seems like she has a very kind, sweet heart; Eugenie has said that before, that Bea’s the good hearted one, whilst Eugenie is more practical.

      I think Bea would be an asset to the RF. I don’t know where this ‘Charles wants to streamline’ things comes from as it’s all just media speculation but he is no fool and would realize W&K are not living up to any expectation and for them to one day take on his workload or Anne’s is laughable.

      Andrew is a pompous, arrogant SOB who nobody likes except HM. He thinks his girls are entitled and honestly I assume they were raised that way, I recall reading about talking of them one day helping W&H with the royal duties when they were all teenagers and young adults. They’d be more useful than W&K themselves, IMO.

  5. So Charles does not want Andy’s daughters on the payroll – so when or if he gets to be the First Handwaver – what then ? chopper and chutney are z list and Harry is finding his place – and HM cousins won’t be here forever – why not allow the Yorks to have some responsibility but limit what the taxpayer has to fund

    1. Andrew is woefully out of touch. The Windsors need to lose the mindset that they are owed a lifestyle of their choosing, all paid for by others’ hard graft. The family has significant private wealth – which they seem loathe to use – and endless opportunities afforded them. I can only conclude that being ‘royal’ corrodes character: it cripples independence and achievement, defaulting to the taxpayer supporting their entitlement.

      Transitions are difficult. Edward and Sophie have known the score for some years now and have had time to re-assess their expectations as well as prepare their children for private, working lives. Similarly, the York girls have had ample time to adjust to carving out their own futures. They have both had excellent educations and opportunities not given to many and are well-equipped to create the futures they want for themselves. Work demands turning up daily for 48 weeks of the year, being accountable for performance, working with and for others. The royals just can’t adjust to that. Royal life is wildly out of kilter with this scenario. The Windsors tie themselves up in knots by insisting on their superiority; the irony is that they can’t function all that well. Being a ‘full-time royal’ is not full-time as we understand it, just a rather cushy sinecure comprising lots of private time interspersed with 2-3 months of engagements requiring not much more than attendance, waving and smiling.

      Should the UK continue with a monarchy, its role and remuneration needs to be radically re-thought. I’d propose:
      • Limiting the role to monarch at state ceremonial occasions and remunerated for these, making it very part-time;
      • Returning public resources – Duchies, palaces – to generate income for the public good;
      • Dispense with paying royalty for their charity work; this is done primarily to provide visibility to the royals and justify funding. If they want to take it on privately, be all means, as millions of others do. This removes the problem of not having enough people to service charities;
      • All other Windsors, apart from the monarch, provide for themselves through personal funds and/or independent work.

      1. I agree Jen. And from my statement on he previous post about the girls, you know I don’t think they needed to added to the roster to keep doing their charitable work.
        I think if monarchies are going to continue, the motto less is more is going to help them.
        Do I think William and Kate are all of a sudden going to become these hard working empathetic individuals? No and maybe the British monarchy will end with them.

        1. I agree, Sarah. I hope the monarchy will be packed up in Charles’s time. But they won’t go easily and it will be messy and expensive for Brits. William and Kate will never step up, that much is clear; their disinterest is palpable.

          1. I wonder if he realises that most, if not all of the perks and wealth would disappear if or when he achieves his goal to end the monarchy.

          2. I’m beginning to agree jojo, I think I’ve under estimated Willaim all this time. Maybe His lackadaisical attitude is part of plan to get out of the ultimate job!
            He’ll be shocked when he has to start paying for things out of his own pocket!

  6. Give me ten Beatrice’s and Eugenie’s over one Duchess of Cambridge every day but I fear the Daily Mail commentators will not agree. The two Yorkies are such lovely girls but unfairly maligned due to their parents behaviour. Sadly Prince Andrew doesn’t seem to realise it’s his and Sarah’s fault that these girls are being denied a royal role. If I was them I would just carry on going about their business much as they are, quietly changing public opinion, supporting their grandparents, causing no scandal. The British public is not inherently unfair and they will win them over but it’s a long term goal not a short term win. I have such faith in these two.

    1. Beatrice is no angel who deserves sympathy however, and that has nothing to do with her parents.
      Almost all the world’s population has to bust their arse working to afford to live, and here she is not working and taking more holidays in a year than most people could only dream of taking in their lifetime.

      1. I wouldn’t believe all you read in the papers about her so called holidays. Many of these are private charity or PR works that are not paid for by the Royal purse and that’s not fair. For example a supposed holiday Beatrice took in Germany……she was actually promoting British fashion brands and her costs were covered by Burberry & Mulberry. Easy to whack her for getting on a plane because the Mail says she’s off on another jaunt but if she’s had her costs covered and is working behind the scenes to support Britain I’m right behind her. And much of Beatrice’s reputation has been garnered on the theory that ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree’…..also unfair.

        1. Are you sure the papers counted that Germany trip as a holiday? I’ve never read that trip being counted as a holiday.

          1. It was listed as one of her oversees trips…..also a funeral in Greece was too. In the Mail of course. I’m not saying she doesn’t like her holidays but jolly unfair to count private work, and funerals in the tally. Why it’s almost like throwing in a state visit to attend a private wedding.

      2. Bea’s behavior is not caused by the press’ well deserved reporting of the unpopularity of her parents. She has shot herself in the work foot.

        1. No she has not. The press has taken an extremely negative reporting attitude to her and Eugenie and that’s why everyone assumes or presumes the worst of the girls.

          With Beatrice it started when the press fat shamed her as a teen and has never let up.

          Eugenie was wise to decamp to NYC for afew years because she wasn’t a target when she was there. Now she’s back, she’s a sitting duck.

          All of this goes back to the parents who deserve their reputations somewhat.

          1. I agree that the press denigrated the girls because of their parents, not helped by Sarah latching on to them so they were pictured as a thresome. But that didn’t prohibit Bea from settling down to and holding a job.

          2. Settling or not to a job has never stopped the press. Some of those so-called holidays that were added to the infamous ’18holidays this year’ story were taken while she was working full-time at Sony.

            When she had jobs, she was still presented as being jobless. When she was looking for jobs, no one gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was indeed looking and when they had receipts of her jobs eg the sony hack proving that she worked there, the response was that she was taking away someone’s job.

            Eugenie is also frequently presented as jobless even though she has a job.

          3. I agree that the press takes an overtly negative attitude towards the York girls. I feel like they are treated like the ugly stepsisters in Cinderella. The second Beatrice goes to a party or club, she’s photographed and the press comments on her outfit or her weight loss (because they must remind people that she used to carry some extra pounds and hasn’t always been perfect). However, her charity work gets barely any attention. If they covered both evenly, or as fluffily as they cover the Cambridges, people would have a different idea of Bea.

            As a note, I’m not attempting to get into a conversation about Bea’s current or previous weight. Solely pointing out that the press loves to constantly bring up that she used to be bigger than she is now, and I find that unnecessary.

          4. What those girls have been put through by the hands of the media is Diana / Sarah all over again but without any of the justification to back it up. When the press has a good witch they need a bad witch. They can’t paint that scenario with William and Harry as William has scorned the media and Harry is too popular so the narrative is…..Charles kids are the light and Andrew’s kids are the dark based on little more than their parenting. It stinks. I hate, just hate the way the Yorkies have been bullied in the media nearly all their lives. It’s to their enormous credit that they remain level, calm and supportive grandchildren who have caused no scandal to show the RF up and who do a lot of worthwhile charity that gets little or no attention.

          5. Mrs BBV: what’s funny in the good Wales kids vs bad York kids is that there has never been a scandal attached to the York girls until the press manufactured 18holidays scandal to attach to Beatrice.

            As teens, nothing meanwhile the Wales kids had drug scandals, sex tape scandals.

            As young adults, the Wales kids fell out of nightclubs on a regular basis, drunk as all out and fighting with paps ( in some cases justified punches if you ask me), nothing like that for the Yorkies.

            Imagine the horror of growing up with the kind of parental headlines they grew up with, yet no acting out and trying to maintain calm in the face of so much negativity.

            And the public readily believes any negative story about them, no evidence required.

          6. Which of the Wales kids had a sex tape scandal? I’ve never heard that one before. Just Harry’s bad Vegas pics.

            That is a good point though, Bea and Eug have stayed under the radar compared to the trouble that Will and Harry were caught in.

          7. On the money to a point Herazeus. The girls exemplary behaviour has forced the media to devise their own agenda. And yes Harry swinging that punch was more than justified. Totally warranted. For those of you who don’t know the pap involved was saying disgusting things about Diana to get Harry to react and back then Harry was still naive about the press and how they get a rise and a photo opportunity. Xx

          8. There is an element of misogyny in comparing how the York girls have been treated by the press over the years compared to the Wales boys. Will and Harry both did things that were way worse than anything the York girls have done but the press give them a “boys will be boys” approach.

            If either Beatrice or Eugenie had been caught naked in Vegas they would have been branded whores and the press would still be after them.

          9. Lindsey: William was caught on tape in a club stairwell getting it on, to put it politely.

            Early 00s. The sun was going to ran the story and early editions might have carried the story. It was pulled very quickly and surpressed, but the story was out.

            While we are hear, there are naked pics of him peeing against a fence in full view of paps at a polo match. Pictures are so clear that you can judge whether or not he is circumcised!!

            Other surpressed stories include his shooting of a protected bird whilst on a shooting holiday in Kenya.

            His poor university attendance, his very public falling out with his then university girlfriend over cheating with Kate etc etc and so forth.

          10. Wow Herazeus! I had never heard of those stories, but I was probably quite young when they were happening. It amazes me that he’s ended up being treated so squeaky clean in the press.

          11. Lindsay and anyone else who may Google William in all his glory, beware as once it’s seen it’s hard to unsee it…lol

  7. I do like Beatrice and Eugenie a lot and I think they do a wonderful job when they do royal duties and/or visit charities but I don’t see the point of them becoming full time royals. At the end they would do the job William/Kate/Harry should be doing and only cost the taxpayer more money and we already have discssions on the first being too lazy and the monarchy costing too much money.

    And while I see the point of people arguing “but what happens after the Queen” or “all the cousins of Queen work less now and will retire”, it aren’t the York girls who need to fill these roles, it are William and Kate! Imagine how many more places could be visited, charities supported, causes highlighted if these two would work like the Queen, Charles and Camilla if it comes to the number of engagements! Alone them working twice as much, which is still a lot less than normal people, would make a huge difference! Also the way they do engagements could be a lot more effective, if they travel for example to Manchester. Why only do one or two events if you could cover so much more working like 8 hours!?

    For the York girls, I’d rather see them having a “normal” job and supporting the crown and charities beside that…

    1. 3200 engagements a year done only by 6 people? I don’t see it happening. And if the BRF stops doing those local engagements, their PR and popularity takes even more of a nose-dive.

      Some seem to be stating that Beatrice and Eugenie should willingly take on a bunch of royal engagements – but receive no benefits or compensation in return. Why should B&E be expected to do royal engagements and charity work, and have outside jobs, and support themselves if W&K aren’t working hard enough? That part of the argument falls down to me.

      1. I would be perfectly happy if they did 0 Royal engagements. Maybe get trotted out for the balcony occasionally, if they must.
        I work a job and do charity work and it’s not “expected” of me. As I’m not independtly wealthy and like to eat, have a place to live etc, I gots to work. Charity work-again not expected but I was raised to give back to others who are less fortunate and find it meaningful and makes me appreciate whAt I do have.
        People with immense fortune do generally to charity work but if they find it to hard to work and charity work, you know what? As long as they aren’t directly funded (as all money wether from father who gets it from the queen or inheritance eventually has been funded by the people) they could do 0 Royal enagagemnts, do 0 charitable work and not work and it wouldn’t matter, because they aren’t getting funded by the people. Would they be criticized? Maybe (probably) but I wouldn’t care. Disappear or do something meaningful to them, whateves, as long as they aren’t added to the list!
        Zara and Peter do their own thing. Do the cash on in in their relatives! Yep but I don’t care as they aren’t directly funded, so make the $$ anyway they want.

        1. They are funded sideways by Anne. They live rent-free at Gatcombe, and the entire estate is secured with taxpayer funding. If the day-to-day costs at Gatcombe are paid by Anne’s share of the Sovereign Grant too, it means Peter, Zara, and their families are benefiting from that and living off the state.

          Also that estate was fixed up with Crown Estate money, despite it being “private property”. Zara and Peter will inherit all the benefits of those taxpayer upgrades along with the estate when Anne passes.

        2. Oh, well said, Sarah! Noblesse oblige used to be the standard for aristos, being of service, giving back, for all their privilege. It was seen as a duty.

          Now, it is a given and expected that the royals get paid for doing charity work, in essence, for making an appearance. This is so, so twisted. Makes me dislike the BRF even more, that this it what everything has come down to. Such venality.

      2. Like I said about it would be possible if these 6 would work like the Queen, Charles or Anne now. These 3 have a really high number of engagements and it should be totally possible for the younger generation to work as hard – but there is the big IF! It would need them actually working and yes, I can’t see that either.

        But on other note, it does not need them to stop doing local engagements. I just said they could work more effective and use their time in the place/region better and coordinate events.

        And maybe the argument is less of Eugenie and Beatrice stepping in for WK and doing the job of these lazy two, but more charity work and representing as their own, as they like and want to do it.

        1. I think it would be possible for 6 people to do the 3200 engagements a year. It would involve them speaking with each other, coordinating schedules, and doing a few days in each region at 5-6 engagements a day.

          I cannot see W&K doing any of that, agreeing to do what Charles asks, and actually working what passes as “hard” in the Windsor family.

  8. KMR, If Charles wants to winnow down the working royals to only seven players, the remaining players are not a great argument for keeping the monarchy. Sure, Harry is popular and seems to take his role seriously. Charles is hard working but is he popular? We know W&K hate working and are reluctant to interrupt their lavish lifestyle to perform any royal duty. Their sudden flurry of appearances are due to a stern talking to. But nothing will induce KM to work and act as a leader in the royal family. Nothing. She only wants to be cute.

    As Jen said, the family is wildly wealthy but loathe to spend their own money. They consider it their divine right for taxpayers to continue to pay them millions every year. Charles must be very worried that this entire royal enterprise will implode.

    Andrew wants his daughters to be included in the royal tradition of feeding at the public trough. Both young women are lovely, but until recently haven’t shown any eagerness to put in any hard work. That’s Andrew’s fault. If they lose their place as royal princesses it’s the delusional waywardness of Andy and Sarah.

    The article includes an old quote from Prince Phillip describing Sarah Ferguson as “odd and pointless.” Couldn’t that apply to all of them?

    1. The press hasn’t highlighted the girls’ efforts and so the recent flurry of activities look new and are being reported as strategic.

      As teens they often accompanied their mother to children in crisis tours in Europe and remain actively involved with this charity.

      They became and remain involved in the teenage cancer trust.

      B has been patron of various charities since 2010. E has been patron of a charity since 2013.

      They have been dutifully attending all family events as required since they were children. They have even done joint engagements with HM at BP or out and about.

      They frequently help their father host his patronage receptions at BP.

      Very little press for all these things or positioned as holiday activities eg when B accompanied her father to Bahrain.

      1. Herazeus, Thanks for the clarification.

        What do you make of this article? Even if Charles wants to pare down the number of tax payer funded royals why shut out the York girls? Why stake the future of the royal family on W&K who are dismissive of royal duty? Is Charles just punishing Andy and Fergie for their antics by shutting out their daughters?

        1. This article has been dug up for a reason which will become clear soon enough.

          It pops up every so often to discredit the Yorkies. I wonder if Eugenie and Beatrice’s recent activities were the catalyst this time eg

          Eugenie also recorded a PSA about anti-slavery that was broadcast the same day.

          Eugenie’s service attending would have been alarming for Charles because the PM was in attendance and clearly this required official representation from the crown.

          Then you have B’s unofficial tour of Nepal.

          I think that if i’m right, this article is designed to slap down the girls. Not directly, but couch it in a way that looks like the parent being slapped down and not the girls.

          That said, on paper, trimming the royal family is a good idea cost-cutting is the goal. PR would be golden. George V managed it beautifully and we live with the consequences, but even he didn’t trim down to the bone like this. He allowed for children and grandchildren of the monarch.

          If we stuck to same formula, we would have 6 working royals in the next generation ie WH, BE, JL to add to CC + ES + A. If we followed HM’s formula, then only WH’s children would follow the six whilst BE & JL’s children were trimmed off. Just as the Kents and Gloucesters children have been trimmed off.

          In practical terms, i don’t see how the intended 6 adults ( CC, WK, H + his future wife) can carry out all the duties and tours of 16 realms + commonwealth.

          Even where they trim the fat and consolidate similar things under one roof and have the one roof function as a sort of royal charter that represents them irrespective of physical presence of royals.

          The bread and butter events that keep the royal dream alive can’t be consolidated into one roof.

          And that’s before you factor in the workshy duo.

          I think however it’s done, there needs to be a radical rethink about how the royals function in order to accomodate the reduced numbers because on it’s current model, it can’t survive the trim.

          1. I
            The sibling rivalry pettiness needs to stay behind closed doors, not paraded across the media. It’s hopelessly immature, and highlights why on earth anyone would need or want the Windsors in ANY capacity. This is what they worry about as many of their country men and women struggle to survive.

            Re. Eugenie: presumably she was invited to attend the ceremony. Any problem with that should have been sorted through their respective royal offices.

            Re. Beatrice: if she is acting on behalf of a charity in Nepal, that is her own business. Harry also went to Nepal. Surely, not only William and Kate are allowed to go there?

            • Why should royal ‘work’ stay the same?
            • Why has the charity workload expanded: is it a ‘make work’ scheme for the Windsors?
            • Has the workload of visiting charities expanded to show visibility to justify popularity and therefore levels of funding?
            • Is ‘work’ a PR exercise more for the benefit of the BRF rather than the charity?

            The realms don’t need tours from the BRF. They are far too expensive to the host country and serve no demonstrable purpose. The recent Canadian tour showed indifference from Canadians who have greater influences these days other than British. It’s a remnant of the past. Same with Australia. These two countries will move to install their own HoS once the Queen dies. There have also been some independence rumblings from Jamiaca, yes? It makes no sense to modern countries to have a foreigner as their Head of State, let alone one ordained by birth.
            That flouts the egalitarianism principle that dominates both countries. Personally, I thought it presumptuous for William to opine that his children will have an ongoing relationship with Canada.

            The real questions are:
            • Does the UK need and/or want an hereditary monarchy?
            • If so, what is its role in the political system and beyond?
            • If so, how/should it be funded and who is funded?
            • What should be funded?

            To get an informed decision, as opposed to an emotional one, requires true information about power and current costs to be made visible.

          2. Jen: if you look at this soap opera with your history hat, this public squabbling is nothing new. Between royal siblings and or between monarch and their eldest son.

            In recent memory, only George 6 liked and enjoyed his heir, our present Queen. Additionall. There was no sibling rivalry, private or public, between the Queen and Margaret.

            It’s sort of entertaining to see HM vs Charles or Charles vs his siblings. It’s merely reverting to age old traditions.

            Now if only one of them would grace us with as witty and powerful a ditty as ‘rule Britannia’ to show their disdain for their hated relation, the cycle would be complete.

            As for rationality and fully informed decision making where monarchy is concerned, you might as well whistle in the wind.

            Entire edifice exists because of misinformation, lack of information, emotional irrationality from otherwise rational people and many more reasons.

            That’s why it takes extreme circumstances for people to be roused out of it eg years of starvation and taxation into penury of the french population eventually cause the revolution. It wasn’t one year of this behaviour or transparency. It was decades. And even then, matters had to reach mass crisis before the population reacted.

          3. Herazeus, granted it’s all very entertaining, though the whole royal game smacks of, ultimately, manipulation by disinformation, making fools of the British people at their expense. I wonder who will expose it, and when public opinion will turn.

          4. Charles, who is the hardest working of all of them, is still perceived by the public as not working hard. They cannot decrease the amount of charity work and bread-and-butter appearances if they want to stop their PR sliding even further south. It has to stay 3200 engagements a year or increase, no matter how many people they have working for the firm.

            HeraZeus, they could each do 600 a year if they co-ordinated and worked more than 20 hour work weeks. Even Charles likely doesn’t work a 30 hour week and takes months off every year.

            Now we’ll have an instance when more than one royal shows up in the same town the same day. That has happened multiple times. Right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

            It needs to be co-ordinated through central booking. If 6 requests come in from X region, one royal is assigned all of those things over a 1 – 1.5 day visit. That also saves on local security arrangements, because they only have one entourage to worry about.

      2. I agree that the York girls get an unfair wrap, largely due to their parents’ historical and continued foolishness, arrogance, greed, hubris, ego… you name it. Beatrice and Eugenie appear to be dutiful family members as well as keen to champion causes. But they are caught between the incredible privilege to which they were born and continue to live in and the requirement to move to financial independence. I think this struggle is underpinned by their parents’ insistence of ongoing privilege for them, but also not needing to dig deep regarding a career. It’s easier to live as they do simply because they could never earn such a lifestyle from their own efforts.

        KMR’s last post was about a group of teens who had given of themselves in extraordinary ways, and I imagine there are many more young people doing similar things. None of these people expect anything.

  9. Ya know… it really is the Queen denying the girls the opportunity. She is still in charge. Andrew wrote to his mommy and he got his answer.

    As for all the “work” the older cousins are doing — perhaps during the lull KMR can look up exactly what that is? Cuz we never hear about it because no one reports on it. A post on the “work of the royal cousins” would be interesting.

    Something else to think about… the Queen has a niece who does not participate as a public royal – Lady Sarah Chatto. There is precedent regarding nieces (and nephews) in the Firm. Further, Lady Louise is also the daughter of a Prince — would then she not be expected to be given the same privileges as B&E? And what about James? Chaz is smart to not open up that can of worms with one set of nieces/nephews.

    Finally, the “head” blood princess is The Princess Royal – Anne. Lest anyone forget — the argument that B&E are the only blood princess is not true. Charlotte will end up with a very happy lifestyle similar to Anne.

    1. Great point about The Queen. She could settle all this in heartbeat. Of course she never settles anything contentious though but given Andrew is supposed to be her favourite son I’m surprised she’s not supporting him a bit more over this rather than delegating it. Also your comment about Lady Sarah Chatto is spot on. I don’t think she’s ever publically been involved in any charity work. Apart from her art I couldn’t really tell you a thing about her she’s so private.

    2. From what I have read Lady Chatto was not entitled to Princess (nor was Zara) since their mothers were the royal and the fathers untitled. Edward and Sophie opted for their children to receive the titles of an Earl (wonder what happens when he becomes Duke of Edinburgh?) perhaps they saw the writing on the wall

      1. I think it was more both Mother’s didn’t want their children to be HRH and wanted them to be private citizens who could choose their own destiny. Both Andrew & Edward however have wanted their children to have the full Royal hoopla.

        1. I slightly disagree. Anne never wanted the hoopla but Margaret ran with it. If Edward really wanted to push it wouldn’t he have his children styled as HRH Prince and Princess?

        2. Irrespective of mothers’wishes, it wasn’t possible for their children to inherit HRH or any titles beyond their husbands’ titles because these things go via the male line unless the monarch steps in and grants the title.

          Legally, Louise and James are entitled to HRH/prince(ess) style as grandkids of the monarch per the letters patent that governs these things.

          If they decide to take it up as adults, it wouldn’t be a problem legally and constitutionally speaking.

          1. A friend of mine’s sister has a daughter. A couple of years ago at a Brownie pack meeting that this daughter attended with other brownie units from the Reading/Windsor area, Lady Louise was among them and very well behaved. I think they are known as Louise Wessex and James Wessex at school. I think Lady and Viscount titles are ok and from what I have seen Lady Louise is close to Beatrice and Eugenie. Edward and Andrew may not be close but the children are. It is a pity William has lost that closeness. At least Harry still is close to his cousins.

    3. As much as I admire the Queen, she really sticks her head in the sand when it comes to her kids/grandkids and some of their poor choices.
      She and Charles could make William work more but instead they act like he’s the one that sets the rules.
      Andrew and all of his stuff. I remember reading when I wrecked a gate to the lodge, that he wasn’t even going to pay for it! And was he drunk? Nothing ever mentioned that but why try and make a shortcut like that, ram into the gate if you weren’t under some sort of substance?

      1. I don’t know if I’m more appalled that he did that sober or not. I don’t wish an alcohol problem on anyone but it would make more sense =(

    4. Andrew’s argument is that B&E are the only blood princesses of their generation. Not that they are the only blood princesses alive.

  10. Here is a very cynical view — does Eugenie’s desire to settle down and be a Mom have anything to do with having kids close to George and Charlottes age so they’ll be playmates? Perhaps Mia, Isla and Savannah (and Peter and Zara) are enjoying a very cozy relationship with the future Kings (William and George) and all the privileges that brings. It’s also smart to have those babies before the Queen passes on — you’re likely to be set up with a trust from your Great Grandmother, don’t know if your Great Uncle is so inclined – especially if your grandfather pisses him off.

    1. I don’t think George and Charlotte spend much time with Mia, Isla, or Savannah. Kate and William are off in Norfolk, while Anne’s family is in Gloucestershire. They’re about 3.5 hours away. I think K+W have mostly split themselves from the rest of the family. I doubt they are taking time out of their lives to visit their cousins. Kate seems standoffish and not particularly close with the other women in the family.

      1. I think they do all get together. I think the Cambridges are real picky about who gets to hang out with their children and family is where they are going to be most comfortable. You are thinking in “middle class” terms if you think 3.5 hours is “far” when you have access to all kinds of transportation options that shorten that distance. Further, Sandringham is a HUGE estate with many properties to house the Phillips and Tindalls whenever they want to go. Just as there is room at Anne’s and Charles’ estates in Gloucester for the Cambridges to hang out. Of course we don’t know for sure — because that’s the beauty of those large estates — privacy in who is in attendance.

    2. Considering Mike and Zara found out about the pregnancy with Charlotte (so did Harry!) from the media I doubt they are close.

      W&K are Middletons through and through, so are the children. George and Charlotte I doubt see their cousins much which is a shame.

  11. So I just realized in that iconic photograph of the Queen for 90th Birthday — Edward’s children are in it… and Charles and Anne’s Grandchildren are in it — and the York family is not represented. And for a family very in tune with connecting the generations and whose only claim is bloodlines – that’s kinda significant.

    1. If you’re talking about the adorable one with Mia holding the Queens purse,that was the great grands. I have read that due to the larger age differences between Louise, James, and the rest of the grands they were included in this one

    2. It was very strange that the Wessex children were in that photo but Sophie Wessex said it was about the littlies so I guess under 16 all thrown in together? I imagine there will be many other pictures from that day the public have never seen so there probably all manner of line ups, just those are the ones that got released. But it is odd to mix some grandchildren with all the great grandchildren.

      1. Louise, James, Savannah and Isla, have all been seen at events together. At times when William and Kate and after George came along, Kate was firstly the one who kept her distance from Zara, Peter and Autumn and now keeps her distance with George.

  12. Wow, there is a lot to unpack here.

    First, I think this article makes everyone look bad. Andrew comes off as whining that his daughters don’t have as much prestige as Charles’ kids (true) and should be treated more equally (debatable). Charles looks bad because his plan is disasterous. I get that he is trying to acquiesce to public opinion that the RF is too big and expensive, but he risks pruning the family tree down to irrelevancy. How can you justify the costs of all those palaces and private homes with just 7 or 8 working royals? Lastly, the Queen looks bad for not handling this herself. These are her kids and her legacy that they are screwing with. They should establish a rule and stick to it.

    I think grandkids, other than those in direct line of succession, shouldn’t be publicly funded, which means the York girls, Edward and Anne’s kids, Harry’s kids and Charlotte’s kids will all have to get regular jobs. I don’t think grandkids should be allowed titles, but since males can keep titles going in perpetuity, it will be pretty stupid to have the 3rd Earl of Whatever working in marketing or as a barrister.

    I realize this leaves the York girls in the cold, so maybe an exception can be made for them. I like them, I think they could do good work, but I don’t think the public wants to pay for them.

    If Charles really wants to save money, start by unloading some of those palaces. Open Buckingham and Windsor to the public year round and turn them into museums. Open St. James and Clarence to public leasing at the market rate. Put all their staff in one building. No royal flight or train except for the monarch or second in line, and then only in a work capacity. Charles is right to bring the spending under control, but he’s going about it the wrong way. The younger half of the Magnificent 7 won’t ever work as hard as their forbears, and visibility is key to RF’s survival.

    1. For the record, the 3rd Earl/duke of whatever is already working in marketing or some regular job. Aristocratic titles don’t stop at the royal family, but if we are talking about the royals specifically, see the Earl of St Andrews and the Earl of Ulster -respectively heirs to the dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester.

      1. That’s a good point, eventually these dukedoms (Kent and Gloucester) that we readily associate with the royal family will only be distant cousins and these titles will no longer be royal. I don’t exactly see George inviting his third cousins to Sandringham for Christmas or to the Trooping.

        I’ve often wondered at what point these extended family members are cut off. For instance, is William going to invite Amelia Windsor to family events in the future? Will George do the same? I certainly don’t see that distant of relatives at family events. At what point is the family so big that they start cutting people off from even the private family side of things?

        1. It seems silly that these titles go on as long as the title bearers have sons. This isn’t the Middle Ages. Many of these people aren’t landed gentry. Does anyone think this system has a place in today’s world? I realize that by saying no, it means getting rid of the RF, since the monarch is keeping the whole title/class system going. But then what happens to the House of Lords and Commons? Maybe rename the Houses of Parliament?

          1. To answer your question partially, the titles will go on as long as there are sons AND we continue to recognise the system.

            Consequently, titles can end up in surpriding places eg the Dukedom of Atholl, the most important dukedom in Scotland is held by a south African. He comes to England for ceremonial duties whilst living rest of his life in SA.

            Further, titles don’t have to be tied to riches, land or influence eg see the current Duke of Manchester who is always in trouble, currently something shady in Vegas



        1. I don’t really see why he should move into BP. It has become more of an administrative centre. Even the Queen only spends four nights a week maximum there. As long as BP remains the focal point for crown business I’m not really too bothered where he sleeps. Besides BP is falling apart, it either needs a cool billion spent doing it up or eventually it will be not fit for purpose. Xx

          1. I have a question about those repairs. Is the Sovereign Grant supposed to cover maintenance and repairs, or is it strictly funding royals and their staff? Has the Queen been robbing peter to pay paul?

          2. I’ll leave that to Herazeus. You will get a far more consumate answer about what should happen. However if Sir Michael Peat was still in charge of expenditure I do believe those repairs would have been started and be ongoing. Xx

          3. What Mrs BBV said. And yes Fifi. Some of the sovereign grant is earmarked for buildings maintenance.

            At the time of the refurbishment of WK’s homes, it came out that money used was taken from the portion earmarked specifically for BP. It was justified on the grounds that WK needed official residences to start their official duties which would be imminent. In hindsight you can see how WK essentially gait and switched the Palace to get their homes refurbished by taxpayers!!!

          4. Thanks, Herazeus, for the info. Really galling now that their KP apartment seems to mostly gather dust, though who really knows.

          5. There was another bait-and-switch when Diana’s old apartment was grabbed up as office space and redone with more taxpayer money recently. The set of photos of W&K with the teen heroes? Not at “their home” at Kensington Palace but rather in Diana’s former space.

    2. Charles also wants the Duchy of Cornwall transferred to his personal ownership. It provides mega money. I suspect his alleged plan to downsize the monarchy is pure PR and tied to poaching the Duchy. As in, “We’ll live entirely on Duchy money, no need for the sovereign grant, this will be more cost effective plus there will be less of us to fund.” All bollocks of course. Yep, they are greedy and as someone else said, will ride the public pony till it drops.

      1. This thought occurred to me when i saw this story. Emphasise on cost cutting was/is a red flag to me given his recent attempts to grab either the duchy or the crown estates.

  13. I can see it from both sides of the coin, but I feel it would benefit the BRF more to have them on board. PC is looking at it from a legacy/budget angle and PA wants his daughters, the blood princesses, to be on board in a role that he feels befits their status and giving them the lifestyle he feels they deserve.

    To be honest, the whole concept of the Magnificent 7 (8 with Harry’s future wife) leaves me a bit ill at ease. Chief among those reasons is that the secondary (tertiary?) pair (W&K) have yet to show any sense of duty towards their positions. They are very nearly forced or spoon fed (via holitours) what little work they currently do. It is almost nearly done with a chip of some sort on their shoulders in their most recent show me the money clothing chosen by their “stylist” Tash.

    While it could be a blessing for those chosen, in the end I feel it would harm the BRF more than make it look progressive. Let’s be realistic, the BRF are show ponies. They are there to show themselves to the public, to make the public feel they are important in some way by getting a visit from a member of the family. Going out to see these groups and people brings attention to them. Obviously, it doesn’t work that great with W&K as it becomes all about Kate, but with the other members of The Firm they manage to turn the focus on the actual event.

    Narrowing that down to a few select charities and leaving others out there twisting in the wind to get along as they can while continuing to reap the benefits of living on the public dole isn’t going to work for them. Why should the people of the Commonwealth pay for their very expensive lifestyles if they aren’t going to reap benefits from it themselves? Even if those “benefits” are visits from people who just happened to be born to the BRF.

    Seriously, if the image of the BRF after PC is going to be Whiny William and Cutout Kate what’s the point? They will be happy to be walled off in Kensington or wherever they choose to live. And I can promise you that William will instill a press embargo on George and Charlotte that will carry until they are married if he can. If anything, they are going to be the first royals to carry master and doctorate degrees to avoid the press by not having them covered while they are in school.

    That being said, I think PC may have actually thought of the possibility of using Bea and Eugenie after seeing Kate’s “performances” and knowing of W&K’s reluctance to do the smallest amounts of work. But, as he is probably not too fond of PA’s tendency to get into spots of trouble he may not want to acquiesce to his requests/demands in an effort to maintain the upper hand.

    It basically comes down to budgeting, PR and sibling rivalry. It will interesting to see how it all plays out.

    I apologize for the length of this post. If we’re choosing sides, I’m pro Bea/Eugenie.

    1. I’m with you vis a vis having B and E on board.

      I think if WK had proven to be work horses like Harry, then there would be no need for B and E or their use would be as limited as Prince Michael of Kent.

      It’s 5yrs in, William can’t define what royal work is nevermind a willingness to find out or forge a new path within the constrainsts of it. Kate follows william. William, in his EAAA interview, has told us alreafy that he intends to be a part-time royal even as King.

      The future is a very limited royal presence because William won’t play along. That will only fuel the republican movement.

      1. Me too. Especially as the Cambridges are not exactly known for over extending themselves with their work ethic even behind the scenes. When the HM generation all retire / die there is going to need to be someone to perform the bread and butter engagements that make up the bulk of RF workload. It’s not all forgeign tours and media grabbing campaigns.

    2. Yay, Cutout Kate! I agree that B&E should be allowed to work, but taxpayer funded and how much is a more difficult decision. The Cambridges just aren’t going to do the work. For this reason I hope the Queen never gives Kate the family order, or any jewels of her own, or buys them a house outright. They dont deserve it.

      1. Why should B&E “be allowed” do royal engagements but not receive any compensation in exchange? That makes no sense to me. It is sort of the same situation with Prince and Princess Michael, and look at the trouble that has caused through the years.

        If nothing else it should be like Sweden, where Madeleine doesn’t receive apanage but gets reimbursement for travel costs and things like Nobel gowns.

        1. I don’t think that they shouldn’t be compensated, but arent they already being compensated for working a little? They do a few appearances and get apartments (however meager) at KP and St.J at market rates. I get the impression Andrew wants them in the big KP apartments, lavishly furnished, with security and clothing allowances. That I don’t agree to, but as an American my opinion doesn’t matter.

        2. The Swedish example of Madeleine seems a reasonable model to follow. It’s simple and transparent, unlike the deliberately convoluted BRF finances.

          I’d argue that Beatrice and Eugenie are compensated via accommodation provided at reasonable rates, but not necessarily through per diems. I doubt that the accommodation is meagre. There may be other arrangements in place that we don’t know about.

          1. But the accommodation is now paid at “market rate” out of their father’s private funds (so we’re told) vs. the taxpayer-funded extravagances lavished on the lazy W&K.

            Maybe the whole system for all of them could move to pay-for-work? Not kidding. Minimum engagement numbers and charity fund-raising targets could be set. Meet or exceed them and X in accommodation and clothing allowances are paid. Fail to work or meet those marks, you pay for it yourself.

          2. The remuneration should be re-visited. I’d suggest royals be paid only per event but I’d put a cap on it otherwise they’d go to an opening of an envelope.

            Rationally, an amount for state ceremonial occasions plus an amount (with an upper limit) for ‘x’ number of charitable engagements. Nothing paid for the fun visits that W+K like doing.

            What I think would happen is that the royals would see that there was not enough money in it and call it a day.

          3. But your plan is a good one. Put all the royal on it, no more fluff tours called “work”, and see who ends up being willing to do the job anyway.

  14. Charles’ “austerity-driven approach”. Well, that’s a laugh. Look at all the obscenely expensive clothing and jewellery Kate is racking up. Look at how the Sovereign Grant has been spent shoring up those two losers. Look how often the fam uses helicopters for day to day excursions. Look at how Charles is trying to get his hands on the Cornwall duchy. When will it ever be enough?

    Bea and Eugenie had better get a clue and go to work. They don’t want to work at a real job as evidenced by their choppy resumes. They want to live off the taxpayers like moneyed aristos and pay lip service to the plebs. It’s just another predatory scam. They are not needed. That snob Andrew’s nose is out of joint because he feels *entitled*.

    I also find it telling that Andrew is kvetching about the Yorkies deserving big apartments in KP, because that is of paramount importance. Yep, massive entitlement and arrogance- they deserve accommodations and financial support fitting to their station, lah-di-da, as if blue blood actually runs blue.

    Her maj, Charles, and Andrew are all three self-interested and self-absorbed and that’s where the problems really lie. They are not worthy of the realm and certainly not worthy of the people who also are not getting much bang for their buck. I can’t wait till the monarchy goes down in flames.

    1. + 1

      Brava, Maven. The queen and her extensive hanger on family are living off other people in a world that no longer believes they are essential. Arrogant, profligate, and self deluded.

    2. I absolutely positively agree, I think that this archaic outdated system of supporting a lavish and luxurious lifestyle for people who simply shot out of the right chute and landed in that system is just plain wrong. I also agree that Andrew needs, as in **needs** his daughters to be ‘royal princesses’ since they are status symbols and make him feel important. Ridiculous. I am disgusted and repulsed by the ‘firm’ and I’ve never been able to stomach the yorkies et al, so I might be in the minority. However, this forum is safe in that differing opinions are allowed. I can’t stand Sophie either, but again, just a personal opinion. Enough with all the pomp and folderol at the taxpayer’s expense. I don’t know where all the money came from but I suspect that there’s enough there to give that entire bunch of entitled sucklings a very nice lifestyle that those of us who have to work can only dream of. Filthy rich is one thing, but while people are starving and homeless, cold and hopeless and these people are draining them further while talking about how they care and relate is crap. I won’t go off topic but as a human being I’ve seen some things that are despicable on the part of these people and in my opinion they should be yanked into the 21st century and out of the public purse.

  15. I understand what everyone is saying. chuck being very naïve! Bill & cathy are nit going to increase their workload! chuck needs his nieces to work. What chuck doing to get the cambridges to work? Please tell me why Charles & the queen kick them to the curd?

  16. I”ll be the voice of reason 😛

    I was wondering when the press would bring that up again, every now and then when the press wants to talk about the York princesses charities/duties or they see them a bit more active in those areas they like to come up with this story, they even added they kate rivalry into the article. That will defiantly perk up some ears for gossip. Obviously it worked from the comments in here.

    The press seems to have a pattern with them. Next up will be their ‘partying’ ways.. probably .. But if true in some way PC and PA seem to have to come to an understanding of sorts as they seem a bit more active, but then again its a special year for their grandmother and they are usually active with their charities and family events, even in unofficial level.

    I don’t believe that article has any merit at all as they didn’t even check the facts. The York Princesses know their place and are happy to help out whenever they can officially or not.
    Either way must be a slow news day to bring this up again.

  17. i don’t think the girls need to be added.i think with all the royal families, not just the BRF, the non heirs need to find a balance (Madeleine has done well) I think when the queen passes there will be real questions about the fate of the monarchy.
    What I like about royalty, the castles, the jewels, the history, the pomp and circumstances, I can get almost all of that except the latter without a living royalty. I’ve been to France and saw Versailles, fountainbleu, the chateaus in the Loire valley and jewels at the louvre. Castles in Germany and palaces in Austria. The Crown Jewels in the tower. Yes, I like seeing the women in their gowns and and tiaras and as much as I like Victoria, maxima and Letiza, if their respective monarchies ended, I could still get my fix by visiting these places in person. I’d hope they would continue their philanthropic work, some I’m sure would but if not, I’d be able to go on.

    1. I agree that the philanthropic work currently championed by royalty would continue, regardless of whether a monarchy existed. To assume that charities would collapse or fare badly is nonsense. The hard yards of running these activities are done by countless others.

      The material trappings of monarchy are largely state-owned anyway so they would, theoretically, become more available to the public.

      Funding the BRF at such extravagant levels is increasingly problematic. Worse, the BRF refuses to disclose how that public money is being spent which in itself should send a red flag. Additionally it keeps a group of people trapped in their own greed and self-importance, dependent on handouts and unable and unwilling to function in today’s world.

      Sarah Chatto provides a good model for all Windsors to follow: pursue your own interests at your own expense and make a life for yourselves. There is no need for public support. Why do we persist in thinking that those with titles (all man-made at some point anyway) are too fragile to have jobs and ‘need’ to live in luxury?

      1. And to think that people bow and curtsy to public money scroungers like the BRF, like WK? Frankly WK should be bowing their heads and knees to any member of the public that they meet, for putting them up in the luxurious lifestyles that they have. WK have displayed that they are incapable of functioning in modern society without their stolen wealth and privilege covering for them.

  18. I think Charles and his rivalry between his siblings is petty and jealous. It is like his jealousy of Diana. I think Charles resents Andrew because HM clearly favours Andrew, whom should have stayed in the Navy. I don’t know and do not want to know the ins and outs of Charles and Andrews lives. I think and agree it is about status for Andrew. Beatrice and Eugenie were born into the Royal fold. Kate married in and five years later her work ethic is far from ‘keen’. I don’t know what Eugenie’s plans are. However like Beatrice I wish her and her boyfriend Jack well.
    Beatrice and Eugenie show compassion, professionalism and kindness, in their charity work. Eugenie has a job and yet still takes part in charity work and Royal functions. I think that they would be an asset especially as the older generation are getting older. Even Sophie, Edward, Harry and Anne are dedicated. Charles and Camilla will be an interim period before William. I think Charles should not scale back as the extended family have shown that they are able to commit themselves to work.

  19. A couple of my cousins went on their senior HS trip to England and Scotland. On arrival they were made part of a group that included student travelers from S Africa, Oz, NZ, Canada, England, Scotland, Germany and Italy. The initial trip itinerary was 7 days covering the major sites in and around London. An additional 10 days were added if their school district would accept a ‘study’ portion guided by accredited university professors. My cousins worked to pay this additional cost and they had assignments and reports to write as part of a World Governments class. About half the group continued with members from Canada, NZ, Oz, Scotland and Germany – most being from Commonwealth countries.

    Several times over the course of the basic trip and the extended trip the group had opportunities to see HM, PC&DC, W&K. They declined because the focus of the trip was to learn about the English government and the procedures adopted by their governments influenced by inequities in English laws. Visiting the museums, Parliament, the depositories of government documents were more important. Yes, they did visit royal gardens to relax, the Tower of London (more unnerving than they thought it would be), the zoo for distraction, and spent a weekend in Berkshire to see the exurbs of London.

    I write about this because my cousin was beside herself when she found out that all of her photos from this trip, stored in a ‘cloud’ storage system, had been lost. She was devastated. This trip had fed her college interest in government (a minor in her degree) and the photos helped her recall important moments. The photos were functional as a journal to her. Ask her about a photo and she would expound on the place and the purpose of its importance. She didn’t recall that I had downloaded her camera card to my computer when she wanted to free space to take photos for another event and was in a hurry. I wrote all the photos to a CD, twice, so they wouldn’t be lost. I gave her one of the CDs and she was very happy that her ‘memories’ had been recovered.

    My point is that this important trip discovering the origins of her country’s government had little to do with the current royal family. She can tell me more about the ramifications of eliminating the BRF from the perspective of government that I can hope to understand. She can also tell me how her fellow travelers felt about the BRF (she still writes to some of them) and their attitudes today. The BRF is not important in a modern world for her generation. The aristocracy would lose position (no BRF, no aristocracy?) but it opens up the country in a way that all of its ‘colonies’ have enjoyed. The land underlying your house would be yours, and not some leasehold from a dukedom. Huge swathes of land would revert to ‘public’ ownership by local government, available for use by or sale to citizens. The government would be less medieval and more modern when monarchy has been removed as part of government.

    She and the friends that accompanied her on this trip (they are still friends and visit often) think that William and Catherine are doing as little as possible to fulfill their roles. These ‘kids’ work, pay off their college loans, live at home temporatily with mom and dad but pay room and board, set aside money to move out and have an apt of their own, keep up with local and national politics, vote, and are inclusive about socializing with all ages of the friends and family group. Their OZ, NZ and Canada travel-mates think that W&K ought to bail out, take their inherited money-jewels-lands and stop pretending to be royal. That generation has no respect from this HS travel group.

    I’ve sponsored one of the travelers from her HS group. She has graduated from college and has found a job in a transnational company that has her traveling back and forth from London. She is happy with the job and maintains her UK citizenship. A Canadian cousin helped another one of the group find a job in Toronto and she is satisfied with her job experiences in Canada and thinking about becoming a permanent resident. It’s the commonwealth or the ties to friendly countries that matter to the younger generations. The BRF, not so much.

    This post is probably too long. The younger generations don’t seem to be as invested in the BRF. It is an anachronism. They should not have as much influence or call on the public funds as they do. When that realization becomes most important is not predictable. The BRF will crassly ride that pony until its dead. Because they can. The current younger BRF members will do all they can to forestall the inevitable. IMO. And, in the opinion of my cousins and their friends.

    1. I really enjoyed your observations and insight. I learned a lot.

      I believe that people these days are fascinated by obscenely opulent wealth, not royalty per se. Take away their trappings, especially their palaces, and who would line the streets to see an upper middle class titled person, even if they were a prince. Royals in the UK are merely wealthy celebrities.

  20. Reading all this has me think that its all gonna come to end when HM passes. Their getting all there Ducks in a row so to speak money wise. If it did Happen I wonder what will happen to all of them. What happens to Harry Invictus and Sentebale. I cant image he will be able to fund his own charities. He’ll lose sponsorship. he’ll have to move out of KP. What about protection. How will it all work.

    1. I think big changes will come when HM passes. Countries will peel off during Charles’s reign, and he will end up as monarch of the UK only. The monarchy will end when he passes away.

      William and Harry will have the inheritance from their mother and whatever private funds they received from Queen Mum and will receive from HM. They will be worth 20-25 million tops. All security will have to come out of their own pockets.

      I can see Harry moving to South Africa, living quietly, and doing his charity work from there. He seems to have famous people who are real friends, including Seeiso of Lesotho, several popular singers, Skarsgard, the acting West brothers, and now Michelle Obama. His fund-raising and charities would continue.

      Bill Middleton? Scrounging a living much like the Duke of Windsor ended up doing, living off off favors from dirty friends and the 7th Duke of Westminster, and making a nuisance of himself filing pointless lawsuits about invasion of privacy.

      1. Welcome to the real world, BRF! I like this scenario and hope to see countries moving towards better usage of their public monies and moving away from the idea that there is such a thing as hereditary power and leadership.

  21. You would think after centuries of dealing with the random minor royals issue that the BRF would have got it together by now. This what-to-do-with-minors and the poverty of the minors has been an issue for CENTURIES. Random relo’s have been complaining about not enough to do or money to keep up appearances since Queen Victoria and probably before.

    It is an absolute failing of the Crown to still have this issue hanging about. It’s not like they haven’t known about it for, oh centuries, and had the time to come up with a plan for the adulthood of Bea and Euginie. Heck they should have had a plan for the Queen’s Cousins decades ago!

    I don’t know if the girls should be part of the working family but I do know that it is proven again and again to be a shitty thing to do to leave minor royals just hanging in the wind. Give these people some dignity. A quiet amount of money to live off that keeps up appearances to their birth and some sort of role – placed in a charity or friendly private company – and something to do.

    Surely it is not that hard to give them a workable trust fund and some role in or outside the BRF that keeps them out of trouble and with some dignity. Leaving the grandchildren of the monarch time and again to grasp about for a buck and something to do is astonishing. What do people expect them to do? Take a job at McDonalds? They are also banned from doing anything that plays on royal connections and they are also left with limited funds it seems.

    It doesn’t strike me as that hard to pension off minor royals. Their seems to be some kind of meanness towards minor royals who did nothing but were born. The lack of a plan for B and E is crazy. How many generations are the BRF going to faff about with before coming up with a sensible minor royals plan and treating them with some dignity?

    This meanness just comes back to shoot the BRF in the foot anyway when you leave someone poor (relatively speaking) cut off from family and with nothing to do then yes they may wind up embarrassing you.

    1. Why should they be “given back their dignity” regarding their status, with housing and other entitlements, to “keep up appearances”? If they want their dignity then they just need to go out into the world and work and carve out their own lives like the rest of us. That is dignified and worthy of respect. Besides that, they have their own money thanks to trust funds. They lack for nothing.

      1. I agree with maven and Jen! First, how have they lost their dignity and if their dignity is tied with given housing and free loader lifestyle that’s not my idea of dignity.
        These are two college educated women with almost all doors open to them. Many peeps would love to be able to go to college, yet due to financial reasons are unable to do so. So that alone is giving them a head start.
        I understand historically the offspring of the spares may have floundered and had to mooch off of people but they don’t have to do that in this day in age. Yes, they are used to a certain lifestyle but as stated, they could live off trust funds and their salary but chose (wether by themselves or daddy) not too.
        And let’s not kid ourselves that William and Kate are giving freebies either (use of planes and houses)
        What’s disgusting is that those who can most afford it are giving the free stuff.
        In the hospitals that I’ve worked in, the dr’s get to eat for free (part of their compensation perks) where as the orderlies (people on the low end of pay) have to pay for theirs.

    2. Ribbons, I’d have to agree with Maven here.

      The York girls do have handsome trust funds that they could easily live on. They are the beneficiaries of excellent university educations. They are both provided with excellent apartments; neither will ever be homeless or go without. Both girls have (Eugenie) or have had (Beatrice) paid employment. Both travel extensively, either on their own money, funded by charities or invited by wealthy friends. They live the life of young socialites. Their larger family, the Windsors, have huge amounts of private wealth.

      The York girls, and indeed, all members of the Royal Family are triply insulated from life:
      (1) The taxpayer provides 300+ million pounds per year to maintain the Windsors. Money does go sideways to members not in direct receipt of funds;
      (2) The Windsors have enormous influence and global reach. All manner of opportunities are provided to their family;
      (3) The Windsors have immense private wealth.

      With the above, you’d surely agree that Beatrice and Eugenie are very fortunate young women. Their futures are in their hands. It would be grossly unfair for the public to pay even more money for the Windsors, particularly when this family refuses to disclose how they are spending it.

      1. One of the big current fights is about their accommodations, and no they are not provided “excellent apartments”. They have been sharing a 1-2 bed in SJP, for which they (or their father) pays market rent. Eugenie is now moving to a 2-3 bedroom cottage at KP, again stated as she or her father are paying market rent. And the baying at the moon about it is all over the Daily Mail. Hate hate hate hate spewed at the York girls merely because they exist.

        One or both of them might end up living at Royal Lodge Windsor, with their father, but that lease agreement may break upon Andrew’s death. I think that is a lot of what this is about – where to house the York girls. Zara and Peter are set with the sideways funding from Anne and they’ll inherit that multi-million pound estate. They no doubt stay at Anne’s large KP space whenever they are in London, and they’re not paying rent or getting criticized for it.

        The Yorks won’t have anything in the UK to inherit, and nowhere solid-and-secure to house them. That may be why Andrew is so up in arms. The girls are big targets, whether or not some want to believe that. He is paying their security, but they’d be automatically more secure in KP.

        1. I like the Yorkies. However, they’re accommodations are far better than mine and I am sure many others. I would love a 2-3 BR “cottage” on a royal estate with all the perks that go with it.

          So, I must respectfully disagree, they do have “excellent apartments”. They are privileged, Daddy still pays for everything, they are not suffering or inconvenienced, nor are they birds in a gilded cage or victims of their station. As for security, who is to say it is not adequate? Andy, I am sure, isn’t paying for a dud.
          Nor is he kvetching about it.

          Just as an aside, they claim to pay “market rent”. Considering the lack of transparency and ongoing mendacity of the BRF, show us the receipts.

  22. I am sure the BRF will cut back engagements after Charles’ succsession. They are the Family with the most engagements because the tax payers have been willing to fund so many people. This is changing so there will be less people directly funded and those people will do less engagements. See Spain for example. It was great for all these charities as long at it lasted. On the other hand there is always one charity more that could have been supported- you can never give all of them what they deserve. I think this is the only way how Charles can preserve a title to pass on. W&K will have to step up or W might be the last king.
    To the whole 18 holidays arguement: The problem was that she took days off from work for all her duties constantly. They might have been for charity but no one wants to employ someone who does that if it is not just a more “symbolic/representational” job (Madleine’s work for childhood is clearly not being in the office everyday as a normal employe). If she wanted to highlight a cause she could have done this within the amount of contractual guranteed days of holiday. Someone has to step up and do her workload on top if she is missing. This colleague might also go on holiday, wants to know ahead of time when to work more and so on… The norm are 28 days- I am not going to count if that fits with the days she took of but I would question that (I am aware she could have negotiated for more).

    1. They cannot cut back on the amount of work they do when the hounds are baying at the doors. They have to keep doing the minimum total that is done now, spread out over the total number of royals that will be part of the firm. And they have to slash overall costs by 2/3.

      Weekend trips, not holidays. You don’t know that her employers had a problem with anything she did. Like Eugenie, part of the reason they likely hired her was to have her name on their payroll. Two of those jobs were year-long internships, so she left when they ended. The Sony job she left after the hacking scandal.

      Even if she took one Friday off to make each a long weekend, she still isn’t anywhere near over the basic holiday leave granted to all in the UK. And if she negotiated for more, good for her.

      1. None of us know what she worked out between employers and if she got US vacay vs. UK vacay time off. The problem is with perception. I’m sure WK and probably even Eugenie take off on undisclosed jaunts but it’s the fact that she’s photographed taking holiday or whatever you want to call it # — is the problem peeps have. Perception is key and the saying ignorance is bliss come to mind in these scenarios
        I get that people want the girls to be happy and successful and they can-just not as paid working royals =)

          1. Exactly! The fact that we don’t know about it works in their favors. One could also question how the paps knew about all of Beas locations.
            There’s a dichotomy at play; what we like about royalty, the wealth (faboo jewels, access to beautiful clothes) and then flaunting (real or perceived) of said wealth.

          2. I’m sure Harry takes as much time off as the rest of his family does, which seems to be around 7-8 months of the year. He has learned to be discreet about it. As have William and Kate, with secret holidays such as the French Alps getaway.

            The royal idea of work is clusters of engagements, followed by weeks of private activity, and with months of no activity at certain times of the year. It would be interesting to map the patterns. KMR, if you have the data or can lead me to it, I’ll have a go.

            The problem for the York girls is that they need(ed) to be a little more discreet about time off vs work time. The optics look bad if we presume they have a 40-hour week/ 4 weeks annual leave like most people. They may have negotiated hours of work with their employers; we don’t know. If not, well, it’s reasonable for an employer to terminate employment. But choices have to be made: if royal work is intermittent, then other work has to be found and done according to the employers’ needs. Kate had this thing of dropping Jigsaw whenever William wanted her but that’s incredibly disrespectful of the job you’re employed to do.

          3. Jen,

            To me, their work record is sketchy. That’s my standard on how serious they are about a real job. So everything else doesn’t matter.

            But yes, I agree with all that Harry takes a ton of vacations. Even now he doesn’t have a paid job, does he? And he seems to do most of his charity work in exotic locales. He’s a charmer, that guy, that’s for sure.

          4. He sure is! And he knows it, the cheeky bugger! But charm at 30 starts to look like profligacy at 40; Harry should be aware of that and sort himself out. Public approval can soon change.

            Because the BRF is not accountable for its spending or for how its time is spent, there seems to be a lot of fudging to give the illusion that they are run off their feet. Wasn’t it Mark Bolland who said his main task was making sure Charles’s part-time workload was spun to look like it was full-time? If they do as little as we suspect, then there is every reason to keep moving the goalposts. if they do considerable work beyond their public meet-and-greets, it would be in their interests to disclose it.

      2. Does anyone know the history (20th century–2016) of levels of charity work undertaken by the BRF? What I am trying to understand is whether there is a correlation of income to amount of charity work undertaken.

        My observation is that the BRF is simply racking up numbers rather than providing service of impact and value. I’m reminded of the Queen’s mantra of having to be seen to be believed. So I’m thinking that many of these engagements are in the BRF’s interests rather than for the charities.

        We often say here that engagements are light in substance, code, I think , for being pretty useless and/or just fun for the royal since it plays to their hobbies/interests. So these kind of things could easily be jettisoned.

        Rather than decide themselves what they do, perhaps an external office allocates ‘x’ amount of work per year to each royal on the payroll. The current system seems financially unsustainable.

        1. They took on charity work under Queen Consort Mary because she saw the writing on the wall. Either they make themselves useful with as much charity work and local visits as possible, or they met the same fate as their Russian cousins.

          Philip has done wonders with the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, Commonwealth technology group, etc.

          Charles has done wonders with the Prince’s Trust, Duchy, Dumfries. Anne with Save the Children.

          All things that have made things better for people in the UK or other parts of the Commonwealth. Harry is following this path with Invictus Games, .Sentebale, WWTW.

          But they have to do both the big, UK-wide and world-wide things AND the local events. It is the bread-and-butter events, honoring the local church group, visiting county fairs, etc. to keep themselves in the job. As long as there are people who want them to visit, they are required to get off their pampered asses and visit.

          1. Thanks so much for that, nota.

            I thought charity work might have been initiated in the 20th century. I’m wondering whether the remuneration is dependent on the number of charity/related engagements undertaken per year, and has grown because of that increase. That is, they need more money because they are doing 20% more engagements, for example. This would account for the emphasis on numbers in the CC. Some of those engagements are pretty thin eg giving birth, being greeted on the tarmac. If you went through them with a fine tooth comb, there could well be a lot of padding to reach 3200 per year.

            That said, regeneration is near-nigh impossible with so few able to step up to the plate. Therefore, numbers of engagements would need to decrease, but also be of greater value to the community.

  23. Yes they are a very dysfunctional family. It looks bad its like there all trying to bring each other down. Which is why I think there is something going on behind the curtain. I all so think HM has had enough. She’s 90 and deserves peace of mind. What ever Money Harry & Will get is still not enough to carry them through they live very expensive lifestyles .Private security alone would be very costly. As for Harry’s famous friends IDK but I think once he losses that status he’s so called friends will abandon him. Harry’s friendship with Sessios all so looks rather strained in the last 12 months. Perhaps Harry moving onto Botswana has put a strain on their friendship. Planting Trees and Ribbon cutting for the rest of his life is something Harry just does not want to do He would not be happy. He wants to get serious then maybe he should become an ambassador for the UN like Queen Máxima. Him focusing on Royal duties alone will not be enough especially with Will pulling rank. I kinda think Harry should have stayed in the Military. Since retiring he looks a little lost or unsettled as to what he is meant to do. I don’t think he should rely on his family because its pretty obvious its every Royal for themselves.

    1. It’s fascinating that ‘ordinary’ people worry that members of the BRF will not cope with ‘only’ several millions (all unearned) to their names.

      They can all use their connections to do any number of things. All that they need to supply is the work ethic, stamina and commitment.

      The trouble with keeping the Windsors in a gilded cage is that they are rendered useless once the cage is discarded.

      1. Are you implying I’m ‘ordinary’ . I cant wait to see the day the likes of Prince Andrew & Edward try and make it on their own. Even Prince Charles is holding onto the Duchy with his dear life. As for their connection only by Name. Once that is gone so are the Connections. I wonder if Richard Branson will continue to support them once the Royal family become redundant.

        1. No, I’m not implying you are ‘ordinary’! Perhaps I should have used the word ‘commoner’ to describe us all. My point was that the royals don’t deserve our sympathy but people still fret how they would manage once all the trappings disappear. I’d imagine they’d continue to scrounge or just get off their backsides. The royals fall over every time they move into the real world because they lack resilience, skills and a developed work ethic.

          1. Jen, I wonder how in the world these coddled effete royals would survive without lavish public funds.

            I think Harry could find several corporations to pay him to sit on their boards. Charles could work as an estate manager. Anne could retire on whatever trust fund she’s been bequeathed. But Wills would be hurting. He’s totally lacking in charisma, intelligence and talent. He would need the Midds to support him, which would not please Carole because I don’t think they are nearly as wealthy as they want people to think. They would need to start acknowledging Uncle Gary again because he’s the one with the cash.

            Andrew has sleazy friends in high places and is used to scrambling for cash. Bea and Eugenie would be forced to cut back on expenses while parlaying their princess status with Weight Watchers or some such commercial high profile company. Maybe as spokeswoman for a cruise ship company.

            Ultimately, they all should start looking for other sources of income sooner than later.

          2. KMR,

            I am going to believe that the Weight Watchers comment was simply a riff off Fergie’s ties with WW. I come from a family of overweight people whom I’ve never noticed were overweight and so I am rather overweight blind. I don’t see it and the Yorkies look eminently fine and lovable to me.

            Bea actually wants to speak about life wisdom in her tentative foray into speechifying. I think that’s just as ludicrous as her (or her sister’s) possible glomming onto Weight Watchers.

          3. The York girls have been criticized mercilessly in the past for their weight. I know that Fergie once did a Weight Watchers ad. I still don’t think it was necessary to name check Weight Watchers as something for the York girls to do.

          4. I agree, Indiana Joanna.

            The royal trappings ultimately cripple personal and professional development and overall resilience. Always being agreed with leads to little, if any, self-reflection. You just don’t have to try. It’s a cruel fate to inflict on anyone in a modern world. However, the material trappings are also too good to give up and I’d imagine you’d get used to them very quickly.

            The problem is how they transition to a less public and privately funded life. I agree, plans should be in place. Bea and Eugenie have known for years that their futures would not entail full-time royal work; to be fair, it should be the entire family helping them to transition. Again, I point to Sarah Chatto as a model to learn from in this instance.

            If I had to conjecture what would become of them all, I’d say all would retire and live off their private wealth, as well as:
            • Charles = continue with Prince’s Trust, on the boards of endeavours focused on sustainability;
            • Anne, Edward = retire, live modestly;
            • Andrew = continue to rail against his fate and scrounge;
            • Harry = be on boards associated with veterans’ issues, wildlife, possibly live in the UK and Africa;
            • William & Kate = flounder, live as turnip-toffs;
            • Zara and Peter = reliance on Anne’s wealth, plus private work;
            • Beatrice & Eugenie = live as they do now, perhaps pull back a bit;
            • George, Charlotte et al = have handsome trust funds, understand that they will create their own futures through ability, past connections of their family;
            • Carole = become bitter, knowing her ascendancy was short-lived.

          5. Jen,

            “The royal trappings ultimately cripple personal and professional development and overall resilience. ”

            Does being born into poverty or into a myriad of negative scenarios ultimately cripple personal development and resilience?

            In addition, how to explain Charles who actually has made a difference?

            Nor do we actually know about the resilience of any member of the BRF because they have never been challenged.

            I guess for me it comes down to character and choice. No one is subject to their background in a prophetic manner. I’m not willing to see everyone born into the RF as a determined bot. However, I do acknowledge that being born into that kind of privilege seduces and smothers immediately.

          6. OMG, KMR, I didn’t even think of the weight angle re: Weight Watchers, just that Sarah has been a WW spokesperson and WW always uses celebrities as spokespeoplpeaka now Oprah. I’ll be more thoughtful from now on. Sorry.

          7. Maven, I’d agree that the royal life smothers and seduces immediately.

            Character determines all but as humans we tend not to discern quality all that well, defaulting to external trappings (status, wealth) to admire. We want to identify with ‘success’ which is generally defined in material terms.

            It does depend on character as to how (or whether) you leverage that privilege with good intent as well as sustain it – Charles with Prince’s Trust is a good example. I’d say he had some good influences, is intellectually curious, and knows what is right. I do think he understands his privilege though his ego demands deference. If all was stripped away, he would cope, concentrating on things that mattered to him.

            Yet Andrew drowns in his perceptions of his status and what he is owed. He wants more, more, more and on his terms. He presents (to me, at least) as incurious and greedier than his siblings.

            Both scenarios – huge privilege and extreme poverty – present challenges. The former lies in not getting totally sucked in by all the obsequiousness surrounding anything royal; the latter in being able to access resources denied to develop abilities because of lack of status (=money). So much human potential is lost because of utter human foolishness that assumes having more means you are better, having less means you are inferior. it’s dumb thinking but humans are still at that dumb stage, evolution-wise.

        2. Jen,

          Thank you very much for your cogent and thoughtful response.

          I’m thinking that character is interwoven with choice and the outcome. Some choose one way or the other unless they live in a bubble. Even the lowliest or the most elevated human has choice. And I think that choice is more evident for the privileged than it could ever be for others. So I hold those at the top by birthright to greater account. I am not willing to deal in a false equivalency.

          “So much human potential is lost because of utter human foolishness that assumes having more means you are better, having less means you are inferior. it’s dumb thinking but humans are still at that dumb stage, evolution-wise.”

          I so totally cannot disagree. Studies of attractiveness v less attractiveness conclude that the attractive are considered more moral and compassionate than the rest. They are considered good. Go figure.

          Yes, I question our evolution. Not much advancement, IMO.

          1. Ah, I’d forgotten about the ‘beauty’ component. I’m sure the ‘goodness’ associated with it influences the likes of Kate in her quest for physical perfection on a personal level, as well as inculcating perception of her family’s perfection, however hopelessly contrived.

            I have absolutely no truck with dilettantes to whom so much has been given but who contribute nothing akin to the level of their privilege; they are, no matter their wealth or position, just a burden.

  24. If this has some truth, perhaps something can be worked out in the future; perhaps have the York Princesses could preform duties without pay like CG does Maddie in Sweden. They way they wont cost anybody anything and get to officially represent the monarchy. It’s kind of like they do know except they would be counted on the CC without pay.

    But I think the York Princess, and the DOY Know their place and this article was made to appeal to royal gossipers and it worked.

    I don’t know if it’s true or not that Bea wants to do public speaking, if true. I do think Bea would have something to offer as far as public speaking goes. I think Bea could help the younger generation with learning disabilities. It’s not an easy task coping and dealing with a long life learning disability. perhaps she could do public speaking events empowering those with learning learning disabilities, at least give some advice in that area. Wealthy or not not it doesn’t exempt you from having a trouble free life.

    1. I think if Bea talked about dealing with dyslexia in the workplace, and overcoming dyslexia to give speeches and such, that would be worth listening to. I think that would be a great area for her to focus her speech-giving on. In fact, I would really love to listen to her talk about that.

      I think with Maddie, she is only given public money for the engagements she does. And isn’t given money otherwise. I think that would be an option for Bea and Eugenie. I just don’t think Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, and Harry (and possibly Harry’s future wife) will be able to do all the public engagements themselves since W&K seem so against doing stuff. Having B&E do some of the bread and butter stuff the others don’t want to do and only getting paid for those appearances would work I think.

      Re this article appealing to royal watchers: I agree. Most of what was said is stuff we already know, so other than to fill space I’m not sure why this article exists.

      1. Yep, If her podcast on dyslexia is anything to go by . She seems very informed. And would do a good job in this area as a motivational speaker and I’m not going to lie an evening with Princess Beatrice did intrigue somewhat me as a royal watcher, I’m such a dork.

        1. As long as Bea is out there speechifying about stuff she knows and is getting paid for it by concerns other than taxpayers, I am totally cool with it.

          “I think with Maddie, she is only given public money for the engagements she does. And isn’t given money otherwise. I think that would be an option for Bea and Eugenie.”

          So she is being paid for engagements as in social concerns, by the public? For why? Should she not be paid by those who want to hear her speak? I don’t understand why the taxpayers are expected to subsidise any royal for public service and why any royal would expect it.

          Additionally, does this mean that if the royal is not compensated by the taxpayer they would not show up?

Comments are closed.

Back To Top