Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Should Beatrice and Eugenie voluntarily give up their titles if they want any public respect ever again?

572 replies

Sweetiedarling7 · 22/02/2026 09:30

Just that really.
I think the only possible way forward for them is to choose to give up the princess thing, make a brief public statement in support of victims and to end their middle east business jaunts.

OP posts:
PandoraSocks · 22/02/2026 18:37

derxa · 22/02/2026 17:32

Have you been sucking on lemons?

That is a bit uncalled for, Derxa.

ONTHEPREMISES · 22/02/2026 18:45

I think they should, for their own sake.

They should announce they are seeking to live a very private life while they process what has been revealed about their parents, and this is more easily done as Mrs Broadbands (or whatever) and so they want to relinquish their titles and step away from direct involvement with the institution of the royal family.

They are only princesses because their father is such an arrogant dick. Anne and Edward knew better for their children than to saddle them with this unnecessary burden of a grand titles, and B&E would be better off without theirs now to let them fade more into the background.

CommonlyKnownAs · 22/02/2026 18:47

A shame their idiot grandmother facilitated it really. I agree Anne and Edward made more sensible choices there.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 18:54

CommonlyKnownAs · 22/02/2026 18:47

A shame their idiot grandmother facilitated it really. I agree Anne and Edward made more sensible choices there.

I agree too.
From the little we see, out of QEII's grandchildren then Peter, Zara, Louise and James do seem to be happier and more well balanced.

RainbowBagels · 22/02/2026 18:56

They are entitled to it as grandchildren down the male line. As are Harry's kids for the same reason. The Queen couldn't have done anything unless she changed the rules, which she could and should have done. The problem will now be, unless it changes, Charlotte's kids won't be Prince/ Princess but Louis kids will be, despite her now being higher up in the LoS. The Queen and now Charles should just get rid of the titles for non heir grandchildren. Then it's not do do with AMW or even Harry but just a slim lining of the titles.

CommonlyKnownAs · 22/02/2026 18:58

I could see the slimlining happening at some point regardless of all this.

BitterTits · 22/02/2026 18:58

If my dad had done what theirs had I would expect to estrange myself from him. They haven't done this, which is grim.

BoxingHare · 22/02/2026 19:06

I agree that the late queen could have grasped the mettle here and said - no titles.

I don't think it was something that was ever in her mind as an option tbh. She probably accepted Anne and Edward not burdening their children, and felt Andrew making his daughters princesses was fine because at some point all these cousins would be doing royal work just as she and her cousins did.

The titles in William's family should stop with Charlotte and Louis, and neither should have the option to make their own children anything other than miss or master.

TheignT · 22/02/2026 19:09

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 18:05

Having lunch with someone who's been in prison certainly isn't and something I've done lots of times with a family member (they went to many prison years ago for a non violent or sexual crime).

Deliberately popping off to go and celebrate a convicted sex offenders release from prison? Still not illegal, but certainly questionable morally.

Maybe they felt he was wrongly convicted, maybe they thought it wasn't serious due to a short sentence or maybe as people have suggested they are a bit dim they didn't know anything about it.

Maybe your family members victim thinks you have made morally questionable decisions in maintaining contact with him. What might they think you should give up as a result.

NautilusLionfish · 22/02/2026 19:29

Viviennemary · 22/02/2026 09:56

They are a pair of grifters. Everything they have is because of their royal position. Without it they would be nothing.

same as late queen. and charles. edward. william. every RF member. So lets do away with this horrible institution then? then take any property and pay them the median salary for whichever area they choose to live in.

damselly · 22/02/2026 19:33

My first thought was that they met E to get more loot from him.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 19:38

TheignT · 22/02/2026 19:09

Maybe they felt he was wrongly convicted, maybe they thought it wasn't serious due to a short sentence or maybe as people have suggested they are a bit dim they didn't know anything about it.

Maybe your family members victim thinks you have made morally questionable decisions in maintaining contact with him. What might they think you should give up as a result.

Maybe. But they should be aware of the severity of it all now. No matter how "dim" they might be.

There was no victim, assuming you mean an individual person in my family members case but a company. It was many years ago but I know that after serving his sentence he paid back every penny and lived an exemplary life. He was someone I loved spending time with, but that definitely wouldn't have been the case if he has been an abuser of women or children.

I'm absolutely not saying that anyone who has ever served a prison sentence deserves to be shunned or the people who knew them should lose out just because of association. But sex trafficking and peadophilia is next level and if I had a high profile public facing job then my employer might not look too kindly on me knowingly hanging around with one. Particularly if I didn't apologise after the event.

TheignT · 22/02/2026 19:47

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 19:38

Maybe. But they should be aware of the severity of it all now. No matter how "dim" they might be.

There was no victim, assuming you mean an individual person in my family members case but a company. It was many years ago but I know that after serving his sentence he paid back every penny and lived an exemplary life. He was someone I loved spending time with, but that definitely wouldn't have been the case if he has been an abuser of women or children.

I'm absolutely not saying that anyone who has ever served a prison sentence deserves to be shunned or the people who knew them should lose out just because of association. But sex trafficking and peadophilia is next level and if I had a high profile public facing job then my employer might not look too kindly on me knowingly hanging around with one. Particularly if I didn't apologise after the event.

Whatever they know now they can't go back and not meet him.

Stealing from a company? Maybe people lost their jobs as company less profitable, maybe someone else suffered as they were suspected. You've decided how to deal with your relatives past and that's your choice, doesn't mean you share his shame.

BoredZelda · 22/02/2026 19:49

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 18:08

This thread is about Beatrice and Eugenie. Start a thread about Naomi Campbell if you want and I'll post about why I think she should be subject of a police investigation. Start one about Jagger or Branson and I'll tell you what creeps I think they are and would personally never endorse them by buying/using their stuff.

It’s entirely appropriate to ask why there is a thread specifically about these two, on which PP suggested other people are being made to take accountability for their links, when actually those people you mention have NOT been asked to take accountability?

exse24Londoner · 22/02/2026 20:20

I suspect QEII's reputation is going to be trashed by the end of this - if it ever ends

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 20:25

TheignT · 22/02/2026 19:47

Whatever they know now they can't go back and not meet him.

Stealing from a company? Maybe people lost their jobs as company less profitable, maybe someone else suffered as they were suspected. You've decided how to deal with your relatives past and that's your choice, doesn't mean you share his shame.

No but they can apologise for "bad judgement" and acknowledge the harm that Jeffery Epstein caused. His crimes are not their fault but their choice to mix with him after those crimes and subsequent silence on the matter doesn't reflect well. I'm honestly not wishing for them to be tarred and feathered, but an apology would be a starter for ten.

There was no other employees in my uncle's case, the company I referred to was the insurance company he defrauded. I'm not going to go into details but it was a desperate act by a desperate person. That is not an excuse but he served his time and was sincerely remorseful. And even though it was years ago to some degree my family all did share the shame. Even though they were all innocent.

If my parents had been BFFs with a convicted abuser I would also feel shame, even though I'd have no need to. But if I myself had also been hanging out with that person then I'd feel shame too, and probably should.

Dazedandconfused28 · 22/02/2026 20:27

We don't really know what they have been told by their parents - and they are likely to have been witness to press spin all their lives, what to believe and what not to believe becomes unclear.

Perhaps they have now distanced themselves - we're not entitled to a public statement on this, and it would benefit no one.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 20:28

BoredZelda · 22/02/2026 19:49

It’s entirely appropriate to ask why there is a thread specifically about these two, on which PP suggested other people are being made to take accountability for their links, when actually those people you mention have NOT been asked to take accountability?

Makes a nice change from all the posts calling us witchcrafty haterz I suppose.

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2026 20:35

TrackerTracey · 22/02/2026 14:02

they have always come across as a bit dim, entitled and workshy

And this comment is based on what, exactly?

Have you ever bothered to research them? They both got degrees from good universities and have worked a variety of the sorts of jobs someone of their social status would normally do (auctions, the arts, charities, investment businesses etc).

Stop making up bollocks just to suit your agenda.

Beatrice with a history/history of ideas degree inexplicably went on not to use it but to work for the foreign office, Sony Pictures and most recently a tech company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy until a debt restructure saved it.

Eugenie with a more relevant degree (English lit and the history of art) works for an art gallery standing accused of breaching Russian sanctions. She also founded the Anti Slavery Collective in 2017 which appears to have lain entirely supine until 2023 when it raised £1m, hosted a knees up costing £280k and stuffed £650k into an interest bearing account.

Have you ever bothered to research them?

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2026 20:53

We're just seeing into a social strata that's normally hidden.

Only one lot milking the public tit so hard it's a surprise their hands don't fall off though.

LemonTT · 22/02/2026 20:53

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 22/02/2026 17:14

I'm not really sure what I think about all of these calls to strip people of their hereditary titles.

I mean, I do understand why they removed the "prince" title from Andrew's name because the whole thing was so high profile and they really needed to be seen to be doing something, but are we really going to start morally evaluating the behaviour of every member of the aristocracy to determine whether or not they are upstanding enough to "deserve" their hereditary titles?

Surely the whole point of a hereditary system is that it is based on heredity and not on merit? It's arbitrary, and there will be decent royals and not so decent ones. Shouldn't we just be acknowledging that system for what it is, rather than pretending that any of them have somehow done anything to earn their honorifics?

Edited

They are not aristocracy. The titles are conferred via the British Royal Family who have a constitutional status in our country. They are not meaningless titles unless we remove the constitutional status.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 22/02/2026 20:54

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2026 20:53

We're just seeing into a social strata that's normally hidden.

Only one lot milking the public tit so hard it's a surprise their hands don't fall off though.

😂

FloofBunny · 22/02/2026 20:58

Honestly, if I was them, I wouldn't be able to get out of The Firm fast enough. I'd be thoroughly sick of the whole royal circus and being the subject of public commentary and being blamed and feeling unwanted. I'd gladly divest myself of all titles and HRH and everything else to be a plain old Miss/Ms/Mrs. I'm sure they have a ton of money inherited from the Queen Mother and the Queen, in addition to what they've been given by the Firm in their lifetime. They'll be fine. But basically, I would walk away from The Firm at this point. They were never wanted as working royals anyway, and the sheer hassle would make it the last straw for me.

simpsonthecat · 22/02/2026 21:02

I totally agree and I've said that before. I would just not have the brass neck to keep attached to the family as much as they do. Even on Christmas morning when all this stuff about their father was swirling around there they were doing the pap walk with the rest of the royals at Sandringham

So odd they feel unable to keep a low profile

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2026 21:03

William pays tax in the duchy of Cornwall. The king pays tax on his interest and income etc.

We don't know any of this.

W has refused to disclose his tax arrangements and C3 has stopped.