I agree completely.
The UK (not to mention world-wide) economy is in turmoil right now. The government has been making cuts left and right when it comes to all public spending that is not
absolutely necessary.The monarchy should not be exempt from this.
There are royal duties and roles that are necessary and require public funding. However, creating an unecessary role for Beatrice or Eugenie does not fall into that category.
I understand that Anne, Edward, and Andrew will eventually retire. I am not suggesting that Kate, William, and Harry pick up all the slack, and perform thousands of duties a year. Instead, I feel that the number of royal patronages and duties in general should be reduced to accomadate the smaller number of working royals.
I know that Bea and Eugenie would not be on the Civil List but performing the duty itself does cost the public money because of security and transportation. Becoming a royal patron, while a lovely gesture towards charitable causes, is not completely necessary from a government stand point. Especially considering how many charities nowadays have found success taking on popular celebrities as spokespeople and ambassadors. Given our culture today, that could be more important than support from a minor royal.
I do not mean to come off as harsh towards the girls. I quite like them, and in many ways they have behaved better than there older cousins did at that age. I agree that much of the media's (and daily mail commenter's) vitrol has to do with their parents and a generally sexist attitude. If they are truly passionate about charity I would not be apposed to them acting as an ambassador or spokesperson. They can even use their title if they like (in the end it is theirs to use after all).
But a large monarchy is simply not possible to sustain in this economy --- at least not without substantial cuts taking place somewhere else that many people would consider more crucial.
(All of this is my opinion of course, others can disagree
)