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?!

Is anyone aware that the royals were recently granted a total exemption from "freedom of information". No other public body has this right. It means they can use this "secrecy" for massive personal advantage. Spending public money in secret without being held to account and for their own personal gain is one advantage

Fuckers.

18 holidays in 15 months... Some nice stats in here! He's an idiot. All he's done is to draw public attention to what they DO get.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2041885/prince-andrew-pesters-queen-to-turn-daughters-eugenie-and-beatrice-into-full-time-pampered-princesses/amp/?client=safari

Recently? It was just short of 2 years ago!

I don't particularly like Prince Andrew's daughters but they are blood princesses and as such should not have to bow to commoners who have married in.

Olenna

never seen "The Royals" (looks good though), but there was a superb comedy programme, "The Windsors" which had me pissing myself laughing.

Try a snippet!

And this - don't know what's happened with the sound, though!

Presumably the problem is that Andrew can't fund their lifestyle?

Personally i don't give a fuck about how many holidays Beatrice has had-as long as they aren't funded by the taxpayer.

But from the POV of Charles, she might be projecting an image that he doesn't want to be associated with as far as Royal duties go.

I can also see the POV that HM is onlt represented by 2 of her GC, so what harm 2more-there's no one else of that age group, is there?

But that interview with Eugenie taht someone linked to upthread.

Don't know if it was edited with a bias, but she comes across with no idea at all.

The title "Queen Mother" was created for the -er, Queen Mother. Apparently the grasping old witch was determined never to be sidelined.

Used to love her "Spitting Image" puppet.

the problem with today's Royals (an politicians for that matter) is that they are practically caricatures themselves - must be bloody hard taking the piss out of them.

Is anyone aware that the royals were recently granted a total exemption from "freedom of information".

people are too busy debating who should bow to whom to notice, I think.

2kids2dogsnosense "The title "Queen Mother" was created for the -er, Queen Mother. Apparently the grasping old witch was determined never to be sidelined."

That is not so. From here
"A Queen mother is a dowager queen who is the mother of the reigning monarch (or an empress mother in the case of an empire). The term has been used in English since at least 1577"

She's the only one who had it as an official title though - her predecessors just went as Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary.

Was she the only one to have the same name as the reigning monarch? You couldn't have two Queen Elizabeths. I thought that was why the Queen Mother title was favoured.

It was as Chaz said, only more predominant with the last Queen Mother because of the name issue.

2kids - thanks for the links, v good.

The Royals is like Hollyoaks - and Liz Hurley is fabulous!

Recently? It was just short of 2 years ago!
It was actually 5 years ago, but that can still be described as recent, it's all relative.

Or it was 700 years ago... In the beginning!

The problem is, their family live for a long, long time. And once they have a full time role that's it. We're stuck funding them forever. So potentially 70-80 years of us paying for security for their holidays and for an awful lot of time lolling around doing nothing in return for cutting a few ribbons. Plus when Philip dies Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh so his children will have the same status and can demand the same treatment. So they can coat tail onto funds right into the next century.

Plus they're just not needed. Part of the reason Kate and William don't do much is because there are so many older senior royals alive it's unnecessary for them to be away from their young family for a full on royal lifestyle. If they're not needed yet we certainly won't need the other two. The understanding is that W&K step up when they're needed. Which is when the Queen dies. They're just absolutely unnecessary.

None of the European royal families have hangers on like that. It's a pretty unique situation because of the familiy's longevity anyway. Plus looking at it historically, the last time there was such a glut of royals was with George III's children because there were so many of them, 15 in total but some died young. That experience showed that a glut of Royals leads to a lot of people who are underemployed but consume a lot and tend to spend their spare time causing scandals whilst adding little to the institution other than a good dose of unpopularity. They would be crazy to give them any sort of role.

Tictactoad he's her favourite son as she liked his father the best

Maybe the the queen would consider funding her granddaughters out of her personal fortune. £330 million at the last count.

If they do get paid, it comes out of the sovereign grant which is relatively fixed (there might be a % rise for inflation but not for employment decisions). So they would have to find the money from current funds (for example by laying off a few modestly paid members of staff who would also presumably lose their housing too).

It comes out of the sovereign grant now. Given how long that family live I wouldn't want to gamble that there won't come a time in the future when they are a direct cost.

I think the queen is very asset rich but she can't sell a lot of it - she's not allowed to sell the jewels or the properties or the art etc. no wonder she never has any cash on her!

Every rational part of me says that I should be a staunch Republcan but I just can't help but like the Royals. I think the Queen is pretty amazing - most people her age are in care homes and most of us don't even
get to her age but she's still plodding on. And I certainly don't envy Kate - I can't imagine going through 2 pregnancies in the full public glare. The thought of having to stand there being photographed 2 days after giving birth is horrific, I'd be worried about blood running down my legs or my boobs leaking.
When I was a child, Prince Andrew was viewed as a heart throb. I remember all the 'Randy Andy' headlines. How the mighty have fallen.

"It's a pretty unique situation because of the familiy's longevity anyway."

Well that's part of it, isn't it?

The heir is retirement age!

I guess William is sort of in limbo & he's in his 30s!

When Charles was his age & with a young family was probably about when he was doing the most!

MissHoolies - of course he was a war hero - for 5 minutes!