The Duke of York wants his daughters to be full time Royals?

[MidnightVelvetthe7th]

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william

This is a Sunday Express link, not a Fail one.

So Andrew wants both of his daughters to have full time royal roles funded by the public & have larger apartments at Kensington Palace. Given that the only time I ever see them in the news is for dreadful outfits & holidays, to me they are embarrassing & a bit cringy.

Andrew is complaining that they are overshadowed by William, Catherine & Harry. But if you believe & support a system of privilege by birth such as the monarchy, then it stands to reason that the direct heirs are more important than the rest.

Does Andrew have a point & IABU?!

Andrew would be wise to keep his mouth shut - he had/has some very dodgy friends and has contributed nothing positive unless you''re impressed by golf handicaps and wasting money.

I totally agree with Charles and hopefully he will slim the family down considerably when he is king.

As for Eugenie and Beatrice, well pantomime season will soon be starting and with their atrocious sense of style, they will be perfect as pantomime dames or the ugly sisters.

Gissa job.

Beatrice and Eugenie, along with Pippa and Kate, are leading exactly the same lives as their peers.

West London is full of rich kids killing time one way or another before they make a good marriage and have children.

Some of these kids work in the family firm, or in the PR firms, catering companies or art galleries of their parents' friends.

The ones with a bit of brain work in financial services. As you might imagine, they're often very good at moving money about and charming important clients, as they've been doing it since they were small.

They all go on holidays together, staying at their parents' holiday houses and yachts, so their sixteen holidays don't actually cost that much. Their designer gear is bought at huge discount because another friend's parents will have a chain of boutiques, or a distribution licence (both wonderful forms of tax avoidance), or because mummy is friendly with a designer whose label is secured by daddy's private equity house.

They lead a charmed life with no concept of needing to work in order to pay bills or make the rent. They want to "do something creative" (jewellery/interior/fashion design) and the more sensible ones want to do something "fulfilling" (charity work, usually involving india or africa so fabulous holidays can be tacked onto the back).

I'm not excusing the princesses; I'm just saying that's how their world works. My work services their "needs" and their wealth trickles down to the people I employ, some of whom really need the money.

India seems to have the right idea about its royalty - you can keep your castle but now you need to turn it into a 5 star hotel and live off that.

Nobility and royalty never did that. It was wet nurses and nannies all around.

Wet nursing was common for nobility prior to Victoria (the masses breast fed), she found breastfeeding distasteful and contributed to the widespread popularity of formula instead of breast feeding and wet nursing

If Victoria didnt like breastfeeding that is her prerogative.

Lots of women dont do it or want to. That's their choice.

I bet Charles's "slimming down"" of the Royal family won't affect him though. He's very aware of the mood of the people though. He has to be.

I didn't say she didn't like breastfeeding herself
I said that she found breastfeeding distasteful which led a dangerous trend towards early versions of formula in the victorian age, which has prevaled to this day, because she was very much a trend setter, her people did as she did, wore what she wore etc.

I think Andrew is completely and utterly oblivious to the fact that things have changed. The Queen's cousins had royal roles because the Queen only had one sibling and when she ascended the throne there were four missing full time royals in Edward VIII, his consort, the Duke of Kent and her father - all of whom would have worked full time until EVIII's children were adult (if things had gone to original plan). There were a lot more royal engagements at the time, in particular ones abroad, so more people were needed.

Hence why the current Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Gloucester ended up with full time roles. Even then not all of the cousins did - Prince Michael of Kent was never full time and neither of Princess Mary's sons were ever working royals.

With the Queen having four children, two of whom have working spouses, add in William, Harry and Catherine plus the fact the Kents and Gloucesters still do the odd bit combined with the fact there are less events (There's no need for a Duke to be a Governor-General somewhere for example) there's just no need for two more full time royals in B & E.

I do laugh when people say Prince Charles doesn't want them though. If the Queen wanted them as full time royals they'd have been so since 18 or 21. Especially given how spoilt Andrew is.

W8woman

Has it on the nose

Ordinary people look at them from their own standards but the fact is that all their social peers are similar. In fact, many of them probably marvel at Beatrice and Eugenie and think that they do quite a bit.

But it was Diana who played up to the publics adoration and obsessiveness over what she wore, more so than any Royal before her, or maybe we didn't really care what the others wore. The others seem to have followed suit.

W8woman great post, 100% agree.

That is true actually. They probably have no idea how easy life is and how little they do. They have never experienced life as one of us.

I remember much being made in the media in 1981of Diana having worked for a living, and living in a flat-share in London with a couple of other girls "just like an ordinary person."

As I said upthread her jobs were just adverts to attract a husband: cooking for dinner parties, part time job as an unskilled nursery helper, and [unqualified] nanny for a couple of hours a week. She worked very little. The "flat share" was a flat in Kensington her parents had bought for her to live in. She was the landlady of the other girls.

I ave a good memory for trivia - her flat was in Coleherne Court, South Ken. A quick google reveals that a flat there now costs upwards of £1,500,000. Yep, just like other people.

Maybe we could give Beatrice some realistic careers advice. I suggest job in university alumni department, where you really need to pamper the millionaire doners and provide them with networking events. A real growth area with the increase in fees. Any other ideas?

I have more sympathy for Beatrice as she is severely dyslexic and has difficulty reading. There are many jobs she'd struggle with.

But even so with the right support no reason why she couldnt work.

I think events management where her royal connections would really carry some clout is the area she needs to look at. I don't think her dyslexia would hold her back.

I have a relative who is v senior in the FO. This relative had a lot of dealings with Prince A at one point and loathed him. I was told that he's a real spendthrift, chartering royal transport, unbelievable spending way beyond what's ever been reported. Lots of bad behaviour which had to be managed away. The conclusion was he wasn't the sharpest knife in the draw but the most entitled. No one liked him. Not surprised he wants his kids on the same gravy train.

I agree with icanteven and W8woman.

Beatrice and Eugenie's appearance is surely completely irrelevant. And yes, with parents like that, who needs enemies? I've never heard anyone have a bad word for Eugenie in particular.

Charles is right to be fairly ruthless about the number of Royals, or we would end up a mini-Saudi (though I think the Dukes and Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester are a pretty good bunch. Better than Phil the Greek, Andy and Edward, certainly).

It's a shame Andrew didn't have the sense to guide his children to education and experience that would have given them more options.

Andrew doesn't, or shouldn't, need to make his daughters working Royals as a means of supporting them. He was paid millions over the odds for his Southyork mansion by a Kazakh oligarch, and has had sundry surprising paydays from similar people besides.

The shit will hit the fan when Brenda dies, won't it? Think how much is stifled and put up with and sorted out of respect for her.

Not sure about Anne, but don't both Andy & Edward live in houses either funded by HM, or at a low rate because they were once owned by a previous Monarch?

I'm sure that I read somewhere that Frogmore House, a stonking great place (imo) has been put aside for Philip in case HM predeceases him.

All of that for one old guy! Any of his kids could put him up in a portion of their plaes & not notice him!

It still seems cray to me that Charles had to marry a certain type of woman (& a virgin??) in the 80s!

HM married who she wanted to but the same didn't seem to apply to Charles!

There were a lot of questions over Philip at the time though diddl, he was a very minor European Royal and it was all down to Mountbatten pushing him forward as a potential suitor.

Yes the Queen had actually met him when she was 13 and had been smitten with him, but most young girls would have been swept off their feet by a dashing young man (as he was back then) in Naval uniform!

When the engagement was initially proposed the King and Queen took Princess Elizabeth away for several months on an overseas tour to make sure it wasn't just a passing romance.

Oh yes, but somehow it all went ahead!

Whaaaat? Can we go back to this bowing business for a sec?
They have to bow to each other ?
I just can imagine bowing to my cousin for example. She'd be rolling on the floor laughing. So would I.
I guess it's different when you grow up with these stupid rules in your life, but still. Too funny.

Will Kate still have to bow to them if she becomes queen consort?

Made in Chelsea types well might live luxurious lives of leisure, but they are not taxpayer funded!

Charles was being quite daring marrying Diana because she was a commoner, ie not royalty.

It had been a long time since an heir to the throne had married someone who was not of royal blood (although it is hard for us to see someone who is a Lady and the DD of an Earl as not of royal blood, she was not). When that sort of marriage had taken place, it had not ended well (eg Henry VIII)

The trouble was that by the time Charles was ready to get married there were not many royal families left in Europe. The Queen was very lucky to fall head-over-heels with a handsome man who was actually a prince (albeit a penniless one). Prince Philip is another descendant of Queen Victoria, in fact when they did DNA testing of what they thought to be the bones of the Romanovs (they were) it was Philip they used to check against as his bloodline is closer to the Romanovs than the Queen's is; IIRC he is one generation nearer. If you see a family tree - I saw one at Osborne house - it becomes clear how closely related they all are.

Sorry have rambled a bit there!