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

[Mirabel]

Why should we know? Nobody seems to be bothered by this except you.

Nobody but me?

And yet so many seemed so bothered about whether or not the Middletons are working!

 

[Lumutqueen]

Nobody but me?

And yet so many seemed so bothered about whether or not the Middletons are working!

What?
Some people are 'bothered' by Catherine's work past. However I have no idea what that has to do with not knowing where Beatrice works. What's your point?

 

[ladongas]

Doesn't Peter Phillips have some sort of sports management/agent job? And one of his clients is Zara? Or, am I deluded?? (don't answer that last one)

 

[Mirabel]

My point is that it seems a bit like a double-standard; people are troubled by Kate's work history but nobody cares about Beatrice's?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Doesn't Peter Phillips have some sort of sports management/agent job? And one of his clients is Zara? Or, am I deluded?? (don't answer that last one)

Here we go,

In March 2012, he left RBS to take on a role as managing director at SEL UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...rother-agent--Charles-Sale.html#axzz2KX5QlT6p

 

[ladongas]

Here we go,

In March 2012, he left RBS to take on a role as managing director at SEL UK.
Zara Phillips appoints brother as agent - Charles Sale | Mail Online

Thanks, LQ. Sounds like a more interesting job than being a banker.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My point is that it seems a bit like a double-standard; people are troubled by Kate's work history but nobody cares about Beatrice's?

People are concerned about Kate's work history because she is the future Queen but spent her 20s not developing a work ethic.

Beatrice is a rich woman, by most people's standards, in her own right and will become more and more peripheral to the royal picture while Kate will only become more and more central to the royal family's future.

That is why people are concerned that it appears that Kate has no work history and aren't so concerned about Beatrice.

In 10 years time Kate will probably be the wife of the heir to the throne - could even be Queen Consort, but Beatrice will be probably down to 8th or lower in the line of succession, married and living her own life away from the limelight to be trotted out at events like Coronations etc but that it about all.

 

[Lumutqueen]

My point is that it seems a bit like a double-standard; people are troubled by Kate's work history but nobody cares about Beatrice's?

Have you read any of the discussion in this thread prior to Beatrice getting a job? Since leaving university people on this forum asked and asked over and over again when we'd see Beatrice putting her degree to good use. For a while she did nothing, a few internships in the holidays but nothing else. Now she has a job, we just don't know where it is. I don't get why that's an issue.

Catherine studied for 3 or 4 years (not sure with a scottish degree), got her degree and seemingly did nothing with it because she was dating Prince William. She flitted from fashion and photography jobs, and then went to work for her parents because of press issues. Catherine was going to St Andrews before William enrolled apparently and I can't imagine a woman like her would not have plans for her future. But they were benched when William came along.

There's a massive difference between the two.

 

[FergieFan]

Apparently Beatrice did a work placement at the firm Cabot Square Capital prior to her full time job, so it's possible she could be working there. No evidence of this, but it's certainly a possibility.

Zara Phillips - Topics - Macleans.ca

 

[muriel]

Apparently Beatrice did a work placement at the firm Cabot Square Capital prior to her full time job, so it's possible she could be working there. No evidence of this, but it's certainly a possibility.

If she interned at Cabot Sq Capital, there is a reasonable chance that she may have secured a permanent role there. That said, PE houses take on very few people, and they tend to have a strong CV with experience in consulting or investment banking, both of which Beatrice does not have.

 

[Princess B]

I was wondering if anybody else thought that if Sarah and Andrew were still married Ut would've been easier for Beatrice and Eugenie to have royal roles?

 

[Lumutqueen]

I was wondering if anybody else thought that if Sarah and Andrew were still married Ut would've been easier for Beatrice and Eugenie to have royal roles?

Yes and No.

Yes - because I think perhaps a family atmosphere would have allowed them to "show off" to the press.

No - because Sarah would still be Sarah and Andrew would still be Andrew. For some reason the girls are tainted by their parents bad decisions and are not allowed to be judge on their merits alone. You'd probably have to wipe the slate entirely clean and start from scratch with those two to allow Beatrice and Eugenie a shot.

Not sure when the "slim down" spin arrived from Charles, but again I think Sarah may have had an impact on his ideas.

 

[cepe]

Yes and No.

Yes - because I think perhaps a family atmosphere would have allowed them to "show off" to the press.

No - because Sarah would still be Sarah and Andrew would still be Andrew. For some reason the girls are tainted by their parents bad decisions and are not allowed to be judge on their merits alone. You'd probably have to wipe the slate entirely clean and start from scratch with those two to allow Beatrice and Eugenie a shot.

Not sure when the "slim down" spin arrived from Charles, but again I think Sarah may have had an impact on his ideas.

I answered this in the thread "Monarchy under Charles". Apparently, according to Richard Palmer, Royal correspondent of the Express, 1 comment was made by a spin doctor in the early 1990's - no other source; Palmer also said that the palace/CP do not brief on this at all. I've written this from memory but the actual twitter quotes are on the thread mentioned above.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I answered this in the thread "Monarchy under Charles". Apparently, according to Richard Palmer, Royal correspondent of the Express, 1 comment was made by a spin doctor in the early 1990's - no other source; Palmer also said that the palace/CP do not brief on this at all. I've written this from memory but the actual twitter quotes are on the thread mentioned above.

I've seen your quotes, jut couldn't remember the year.
Cutting the girls out early is like damage control before it happens IMO.

 

[Mirabel]

No - because Sarah would still be Sarah and Andrew would still be Andrew. For some reason the girls are tainted by their parents bad decisions and are not allowed to be judge on their merits alone.

Do you mean judged by Charles?
Or by the press?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Do you mean judged by Charles?
Or by the press?

Both I would go with.

 

[cepe]

IF this was an active decision, Charles did not make it on his own.

In the early 1990s Andrew and Charles were married, had 2 young children and "slimming down" the BRF could be interpreted as just being the off-spring on HMQ, and not including Gloucesters, Kents etc. The Princess Royal had already intimated that her children would not be "royal". So just the Wales' and the Yorks would have been logical for the future.

We tend to consider "slimming down" in the context of what happened later - the messy divorces, bad behaviour, reputational damage. But that was not necessarily the case.

I think that it is ok for Beatrice and Eugenie to help out as they have been, with no cost to the tax payer. I think it is mean spirited not to give them credit for it by excluding them from the Court Circular.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The Royal Family will be naturally slimmed down, because many of it's members are over 65 years old. The Prince of Wales seems not to have noticed this yet. One day, the two York Princesses will be needed.

 

[cepe]

The Royal Family will be naturally slimmed down, because many of it's members are over 65 years old. The Prince of Wales seems not to have noticed this yet. One day, the two York Princesses will be needed.

Have you read any of the earlier posts because it is not definite that it is the PoW decision. Don't you think that the Queen has any say at all?

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Have you read any of the earlier posts because it is not definite that it is the PoW decision. Don't you think that the Queen has any say at all?

Of course, the Queen is the only one who really has a say on this matter. But that's during Her reign.

I'm talking about what can happen in the next reign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No - I think the idea has always been for them to be peripheral to the family's needs.

In the 30s, 40s and 50s as the monarchy was rebranding itself after the abdication and war and into a new reign there was a belief that the extended royals were needed to do a job to promote the concept of royalty and monarchy.

By the 80s that was changing and certainly into the 90s and beyond there have been clear signs of them not being needed.

When there was an empire and 50+ countries had the monarch in one form or another as Head of State there was a belief that the minor royals could help but now that the empire has gone, the monarch has only 15 other realms left and The Commonwealth is even saying that the monarch isn't necessary to its existence (the idea that Charles won't automatically be Head of the Commonwealth has been around for many years - particularly in the former colonies who still see the position of monarch as one of subjugation rather than equality).

There really is no need for the girls.

 

[cepe]

but it's happening now. It's the queen who has decided not to include any work they do in the court circular. It's not Charles' decision.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

No - I think the idea has always been for them to be peripheral to the family's needs.

In the 30s, 40s and 50s as the monarchy was rebranding itself after the abdication and war and into a new reign there was a belief that the extended royals were needed to do a job to promote the concept of royalty and monarchy.

By the 80s that was changing and certainly into the 90s and beyond there have been clear signs of them not being needed.

When there was an empire and 50+ countries had the monarch in one form or another as Head of State there was a belief that the minor royals could help but now that the empire has gone, the monarch has only 15 other realms left and The Commonwealth is even saying that the monarch isn't necessary to its existence (the idea that Charles won't automatically be Head of the Commonwealth has been around for many years - particularly in the former colonies who still see the position of monarch as one of subjugation rather than equality).

There really is no need for the girls.

I believe the girls will be needed to perform the minor role that Princess Alexandra has today.

 

[cepe]

I agree. They are willing and able, judging by what they have done so far. They also have time on their hands. William and Harry are in the military. Lost opportunity in my opinion. But it's down to HMQ to sort it.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I agree. They are willing and able, judging by what they have done so far. They also have time on their hands. William and Harry are in the military. Lost opportunity in my opinion. But it's down to HMQ to sort it.

In 10-20 years, the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Gloucesters and the Kents, will be either dead or to old to be full-time working Royals.

Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne, will be in their 80's and 60's.

Willam, Harry and their wives will certainly taking the burden of duties that the Queen's children perform today.

But, the minor roles Her Majesty's cousins have today will be too much to be taken only by William and Catherine, Harry and Wife. So, I believe the York Princesses will be need. Either the Queen or Charles will notice this fact, soon or later.

 

[suztav]

Don't you think the "slimming down" is one that other royal families have taken? Look at The Netherlands. The only HRH's are those who are children of the monarch. Constantijn's children aren't HRH's. In Norway, Martha-Louise's daughters aren't HRH's; and in Denmark, Joachim's children aren't HRH's.

Let's be mature, grow up, and stop perpetuating the Charles hates Andrew saga. After all, this slimming down will eventually affect his son Harry and his off-spring.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Just because other Monarchies have done that, doesn't means it's necessary also in Britain.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Don't you think the "slimming down" is one that other royal families have taken? Look at The Netherlands. The only HRH's are those who are children of the monarch. Constantijn's children aren't HRH's. In Norway, Martha-Louise's daughters aren't HRH's; and in Denmark, Joachim's children aren't HRH's.

Let's be mature, grow up, and stop perpetuating the Charles hates Andrew saga. After all, this slimming down will eventually affect his son Harry and his off-spring.

Not sure why you mention the Charles hates Andrew thing, when this "slimming down" is at the minute coming from The Queen. Those countries have had slimmed down monarchy's for years, the BRF have not. When it comes down to it it's about the number of engagements the royal family does a year, and the number of people to do them. Not enough people and engagements, patronages, charities are going to be forgotten. It will be a pick a mix came as to who gets represented. That will not turn out favourably for Charles, IF that's the road he takes.

 

[suztav]

Not sure why you mention the Charles hates Andrew thing, when this "slimming down" is at the minute coming from The Queen. Those countries have had slimmed down monarchy's for years, the BRF have not. When it comes down to it it's about the number of engagements the royal family does a year, and the number of people to do them. Not enough people and engagements, patronages, charities are going to be forgotten. It will be a pick a mix came as to who gets represented. That will not turn out favourably for Charles, IF that's the road he takes.

I think the "slimming down" the one of the harsh realities of modern economic life -- royal or not. I do, however, agree with you that that since so many charities and groups in Britain have been fortunate to have "royal" attention (either as patrons or as guests at events) ... it's going to be interesting to see how Charles and William handle the slimming down. Organizations, rightfully so, will not want to feel ignored or snubbed. As wrote last June in the Queen's Jubilee thread ... the issue of royal patronages not the economics of the civil list will be a major issue. I think that Beatrice and Eugenie will be of "assistance" to their uncle and cousin in the future -- frankly, it's a matter of practicality. They will need family members to be patrons, attend events, etc ...

 

[NGalitzine]

There is nothing to stop Beatrice & Eugenie from taking on patronages and doing charitable work on their own if they wish. Just because they don't get a mention in the CC is not an impediment as the Michaels of Kent have proven.