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?!

Tourism? No one ever goes to France because it has no royal family. If only they hadn't beheaded Louis loads and loads of people would go to Paris. As it is, no one, it's like a ghost town.

I think it is a pity Beatrice didn't do a stint in the armed forces. She can run a marathon, so she would have passed the fitness tests. She may be dyslexic but that's no bar to a short career in the army. A few years in the RLC or AGC would have given her some credibility. Or perhaps the Navy or RAF. Either way, she could have rested on those laurels for years. Instead she's just rested - without the laurels.

Eugenie has scoliosis, so this option wasn't open to her.

Kate is a Princess,

1 Full title ends with, Princess William Of Wales

1. Is listed on the Birth certificates of George/Charlotte as 'Princess Of The United Kingdom'

She isn't able to become Princess Katherine as she was a commoner and William is not yet Prince Of Wales, hence why they are known as they are so as she doesn't have to be referred to as Princess William.

Can't Beatrice and Eugenie even manage to hold down a job their dad wangled for them. Pretty piss poor tbh.

And as for the Crown Estate in a Republic, no we people would not get to claim all of it. It would still belong to them. Instead of being HM the Queen owning the lot she would be Mrs Elizabeth Windsor, still owning the lot.

In the same way that she owns Sandringham. So a Republic would lose the tax payer a big income, and make an old lady even richer.

Interesting that the article is all about Andrew wanting them to be "full time Royals." It doesn't necessarily say that his daughters actually want that. I think him publicly pushing for this is actually bad publicity for them, so I have to wonder at his tactics. Not too clever. And who is to say that is actually what they want?

As for the civil list. I could be wrong but I think it's the Queen & Phillip who get money directly from the civil list now

In 2013 it was re-named the Sovereign Grant, but otherwise you're right; the payments used to cover the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret too, but of course that ended with their deaths

I believe the Queen is supposed to cover the expenses of "lesser" family members herself now, but would be very surprised if some "creative accounting" doesn't go on, to keep the taxpayer-funded money flowing

As ever, what's released for public consumption and what actually happens can be very different ...

We wouldn't HAVE to give them anything if they walked away.Theyve had enough already. It really is that simplistic. Yes... no chance of any one of them bringing a law suit! And if they did, no chance of them winning any part of it... whilst wasting god knows how much on the law suit...

How do we replace the millions they bring in as tourist attractions? we wouldn't have to because I don't believe they do Oh! Well, if that's your opinion then we are all fine! Alternatively, we could look at he world as it really is - even if you are an ardent republican there are certain things that simply are!

If anything I think we'd make more, think of all those huge empty palaces. yes... thinking... about the fact that a) they are not all in the Crown Estate, some are actually owned by the queen, and other royals, as an individual! b) they already have lots of tourists... not sure not having a royal hanging around somewhere increases the number!

But the majority of tourists don't come because of the royals anyway and not all of the tourist pounds are made from people being here. Lots of Americans have never left the US, but still spend hundreds of dollars on royal memorabilia!

France does rather well. So you do advocate killing them all off!

There is no "on and on" Oh there is. So much of what they do is below the radar and very important to a wide section of society. We would have to pay someone to do much of what they do... more civil servants etc.

We really shouldn't have them If you say so! Many disagree. Many want to explore the realities, rather than be all jingoistic about it!

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-crown-estate-owns-800m-in-vacant-london-property-investigation-finds-a6769251.html
polyethyl if you read this it will tell you that they only own it for the duration of their reign. But even if they didn't their MASSIVE wealth is shocking.

Puzzled You are completely right

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list

Princess Anne's children didn't automatically get titles as they don't pass down a female line (though the Queen could have given them some). I don't see the harm on Eugenie and Beatrice working for the 'firm'; I am sure there must be a role they could play in one of Charle's tea shops?

The civil list no longer exists but when it did (up to 2011) only the Queen, her mum, and Prince Philip were on it. Everyone else was paid for either by the Duchy if Cornwall (Prince Charles and his family) or the Queen by the sovereign grant.

I can't see a problem with them wanting to do charity work or voluntary work.

It doesn't have to be on behalf of HM or the Royal family though, does it?

Whatever those two girls do they will be criticised , let them have the accommodation and full time royal duties . The royal family needs younger people like them and if they can help raise charity profiles then all good and well.

Ourblanche What if someone brought a law suit against THEM, , the legalities of all their land and wealth perhaps?

Yes it is my opinion they don't bring in millions in tourism. Many others think the same.

You think "having a royal hanging round somewhere" will increase tourism?
Most people aren't daft enough to expect that. But empty palaces are a big attraction, the Palace of Versailles comes to mind.

"so much of what they do is below the radar"?
I bet there's a lot of stuff that goes on under the radar, so much is shrouded in secrecy that they wouldn't want us to know about.

As my link above shows, £800 million in empty London properties.......meanwhile people are living on the streets. I suppose that is under the gueens radar though.

Thank you hopetobehappy for that interesting article, yes they currently own it for the "duration of their reign" but if no one is reigning (because we've voted for a Republic) then it reverts to their private ownership. King George handed over the income but not the ownership.

If still married I'm pretty sure Fergie would have loved the idea of a Windsor reality show, from which they could blatantly squander not unlike those Kardashian people

She actually did something like this, it was soooo embarrassing. it is. Barbara Windsor, Rowan Atkinson, Les Dawson, Su Pollard and a load of minor royals, Fergie organised it all. And Stuart Hall who is now in jail for paedo activities. You can see them come in at 4m30s. What possessed Anne to get involved god only knows. Apparently Her Maj was furious.

Why would a president be a bad idea? As a nation we don't seem to do very well voting in politicians. President Thatcher, Major, Blair or Cameron? The British people voted them all in. London even voted in Livingstone and Boris ffs.

I would rather stick with Queenie thanks, she is still working away carrying out 315 public engagements lady year. She is 90 and should have retired 25 years ago. She has never embarrassed this country and is respected worldwide.

Also if we go down the US example of a president, the ex presidents still get a substantial salary and full security protection. Add to that the substantial costs of having a president. We would still need to pay for them, protect them and their family, provide palaces for them to greet visiting dignitaries etc.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor do allow tourists in. Balmoral and Sandringham are privately owned.

Britain is known for the Queen, palaces and castles, the Crown jewels, the changing of the guard, it's definitely has an pull that no other country has. When you say "The Queen" in most countries of the world people think of Elizabeth. It is a little something to be proud of in a country that has fallen apart.

I think that the "Royal Knockout" was Edward's idea, wasn't it?

How it ever got the go ahead is beyond me.

That & Princess Anne being in it I never could understand tbh.

Was it Edward's? Yes could have been, he had that film company at the time didn't he until it went bust

Roussette I think you'll find that embarrassing "It's a Royal Knockout" was organized by Prince Edward - it was the massive strop he threw on reporters afterwards which more or less did for his credibility as a "director" (that, and the fact his company nearly went bust)

As for the privately-owned palaces, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Victoria fund Balmoral and Sandringham out of savings she made from her Civil List money? I believe George VI had to pay Edward VIII a packet in compensation for them when he abdicated, but surely the (admittedly tenuous) point is this ... if public money paid for these properties, are they really as "private" as claimed?

Polyethyl

We would just take them off them. All the "private" houses were bought with money that was paid to them from the Civil List. Honestly, we paid for them but for some reason we've decided they're not our property.

Polyethyl no it would revert back to the people of the UK. In other words we'd get to keep ALL the profits.

I think there's a lot of truth in what a poster said upthread about their options having been limited by their father. The other royal siblings who have opted out of royal lives for their children took active steps with their children from birth to "train" them for a normal life.

Zara Tindall is the highest earning member of her generation of the royal family in her own right as a result (largely because of her Longines contract, but still).

I think Andrew has spent the last 3 decades actively blocking his daughters from having any kind of normal life, and systematically humiliating them with his public and private behaviour, and then embarrassing them further with (alleged) calls for them to give up whatever work they do now and become full time royals. One is getting the hell out and marrying next year, and the other has just broken up with a boyfriend who wasted 10 years of her life, and then decided he didn't want to marry her when it was finally permitted.

I'm a fervent republican, but I think these two have had an appalling time from their appalling parents, who have left them woefully unprepared for any kind of normal life.

Andrew's a privileged prat, incapable of working because he enjoys the playboy lifestyle too much and he's instilled in his daughters a similar ethos.

I have often wondered how thick and dull they must be. They've had top flight educations, are completely connected and yet can't get jobs that let them pay their way. There must be dozens of companies that would give them honorary positions just for their connections alone, and yet they don't. Even these two wally's could surely avoid a fake shaikh.

The endless holidays and hanging around at ascot and garden parties just makes them look like diletenntes. And poor Beatrice would be well advised to stay well clear of any camera as she has the same ability as me to look alright in real life, but exactly like a fish through the eye of a lens.