Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Will Beatrice and Eugenie become full time royals?

115 replies

Flynnqwer · 14/01/2022 17:13

When they’re Counsellors of State?

Currently the four Counsellors are Charles, William, Harry and Andrew. When Charles accedes the throne Beatrice will take her place as counsellor, and when William accedes so will Eugenie. Or perhaps they will sooner than that given that Harry and Andrew can, in reality, not represent the Queen any more.

Will they become full time royals at that point? Currently William and Kate are the only working royals of their generation. I know Charles is keen on a slimmed down monarchy, but William will need support from his own generation in the absence of Harry.

OP posts:
Lockdownbear · 19/01/2022 09:28

Depends if they want to take the load off their own Mum and support William but it's one of those things it's a job for life, it's not something they can say they'd do for a a few years then step back.

It's going to come down to who does William feel he can really trust to support him. The RF is a well oiled machine they can make stuff work if they need to.

CathyorClaire · 19/01/2022 10:04

The cousins that haven't been mentioned Zara and Peter I think they could be asked to step up more than B & E.

Peter and Zara are far too busy milking their connections to step up for a rainy Wednesday afternoon gig at the far end of Arseville.

As for sighting a 'full time working royal' I think I'm more likely to spot a unicorn.

JustLyra · 19/01/2022 16:54

Peter and Zara aren’t going to be working royals imo.

They’re untitled, and them coming in would really leave no excuse for preventing the titled cousins from being working royals.

Peter has been involved in too many dramas - the jubilee picnic party, the milk commercial and then the breaking lockdown business meeting with the woman who apparently wasn’t his girlfriend then, but is now.

Zara has her riding career and Mike’s dwarf throwing incident has been nicely forgotten.

Both of them have kept their children quite private and as they kids of private citizens the press don’t really have any excuse for going after them except on official occasions, but with working royal parents that would be different. It would open up a scrutiny I don’t think either would want their children to come under.

CathyorClaire · 19/01/2022 19:51

Mike’s dwarf throwing incident has been nicely forgotten

Likewise his snout in the furlough trough.

KatherineParr · 19/01/2022 20:41

JustLyra is right imo - bringing in Peter and Zara isn't going to happen. Not only have they been brought up as entirely private citizens, they're also the furthest down the line of succession. They'd have to consider bringing on Beatrice/Eugenie as next in line of succession before they brought on anyone else. They'll be reluctant to bring on Beatrice and Eugenie given they will remind everyone of Andrew and there would be presentational problems with bringing in the others (Louise/James/Peter/Zara), as the public would see this as an expansion of the royal family. They will just have to make do with fewer people.

JustLyra · 19/01/2022 21:07

Louise and/or James using their titles and becoming working royals is massively unlikely, but way more likely than Peter or Zara imo.

At most though I think Louise will get heavily involved in the DofE. Especially if her parents are carrying a heavy workload.

Also depending on how things progress she might do occasional things like foreign royal weddings if eve time else is busy as her parents cover them atm so they have the relationships with foreign royals. In time though that’ll likely be Charlotte or Louis’ gig.

ItsCoachBombay · 19/01/2022 21:17

I think people are taking Charles slimmed down comment a bit too seriously.

Personally I always thought it ment cutting out people like princess Michael of Kent and that old guard.

Not the members the general public actually know and can recognise.

I see no issue with Princess Beatrice and her husband and Princess Eugenie and her husband becoming senior working royals. They both appear to be hard working women (as much as you can be I suppose with those titles). And should never be branded with the same iron as their father. They have done nothing wrong.

I'll also admit however I've a soft spot for Princess Eugenie and I thought her wedding was the best royal wedding 😳

CathyorClaire · 19/01/2022 21:24

Charles plugs the slimmed down monarchy line because he thinks it plays well with the plebs. The reality is it won't subdue his own bloated lifestyle one iota.

Win-win.

Roussette · 19/01/2022 21:36

I blinking well hope Charles does mean a properly slimmed down monarchy!

I'm not sure we have a clue whether B&E work hard, they didn't at one point with B having 17 holidays in one year! Plus they're new Mums and if Kate takes thing easy with her young brood (which she really does) , I'm not sure we can expect the York sisters to be stepping up for a long time, if at all. I can't see it ever happening TBH

They will have to cut their cloth according to who's available, which I hope to be very slimmed down

JustLyra · 19/01/2022 22:57

Personally I always thought it ment cutting out people like princess Michael of Kent and that old guard.

He can’t have meant that. Prince Michael is 80 this year and is the youngest of the Kent’s so natural slimming will occur with them.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the Kent’s of their generation - grandchildren of one monarch, nieces of the next, cousins of the following.

The Kent’s were only working royals through a series if random events - the abdication, the early death of George VI and the earlier death of their father. It’s really unlikely to be replicated with the York’s, despite the loss of Andrew, Harry and Meghan to the working rota.

Lockdownbear · 19/01/2022 23:01

I always took Charles slimmed down to mean his own siblings and children. Then in time Williams children.

What he hasn't considered is Harry leaving William standing and William not having any support of his own generation.

Charles will be an old king and need support just as HMQ does now.

If William is tied up supporting Charles. Who's doing what William is currently doing?

The issue isn't now its in 5-10 years time. When the Cambridge kids are too young but Charles's generation are too old.

KatherineParr · 19/01/2022 23:15

I think we'll see a different style of monarchy after the Queen dies as Rousette describes. There will be fewer working royals, they'll have to prioritise the events they attend, and there will be fewer royals at the big state occasions. The State Opening of Parliament used to be a massive affair, with all the royals attending in orders/tiaras etc. Now it's just the Queen, Charles and Camilla. Similarly the Kents, Gloucesters etc. all used to attend state banquets. We've never seen Beatrice or Eugenie, who are effectively in the same position, at any of these events and I suspect we never will.

Lockdownbear · 20/01/2022 00:09

But the Queen was very young, her children were babies when she took the throne, she had her mum, sister and her cousins (Kents, Gloucesters, and Princess Alice too??) to give her a Senior Team of about 7 royals plus partners.
OK there was a time when that Senior team were still working and slowly handing over to the Queens children.

The current top team is 4 and 3 partners

In 10 years only William and Kate will be under retirement age. With his kids still in school.

There's slim and cut to the bone no longer functioning.
The council thing that Andrew and Harry are about to be bumped off needs 4 people. In 10 years William could be looking very lonely meetings for one!

JustLyra · 20/01/2022 00:31

But the Queen was very young, her children were babies when she took the throne, she had her mum, sister and her cousins (Kents, Gloucesters, and Princess Alice too??) to give her a Senior Team of about 7 royals plus partners.
OK there was a time when that Senior team were still working and slowly handing over to the Queens children.*

It should be remembered though that the Queen’s cousins weren’t all full time royals at that time - they are all a bit younger than her so mostly replaced their parents when it was needed.

King George V, Queen Mary and Edward VII, then the Duke of Kent, were all full time royals in 1936. By 1942 two were dead, one was an ex-King and one a retired Dowager Queen.

Her team when she started was herself, Philip, her mother, her sister, Princess Mary, the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Marina.

The council thing that Andrew and Harry are about to be bumped off needs 4 people. In 10 years William could be looking very lonely meetings for one!

The York girls being Counsellors of State won’t be an issue. It’s an occasional admin job basically. And once Charles is King Camilla can be added, then when William is Kate can be.

One of the Queen’s early CoS’s was her cousin George Lascelles, then Earl of Harewood. As a son of Princess Mary he was way down the line of succession, but he was old enough.

derxa · 20/01/2022 06:43

It is ordained by God after all, their children are less important.
Oh FFS

New posts on this thread. Refresh page