Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Pistachiocake · 23/02/2026 23:14

Nickyknackered · 22/02/2026 10:11

I also think, they are potential victims (not sexual abuse but neglect of good parenting and providers of moral compass). Growing up with a parent doing this kind of behaviour and poor morals at the very least will have affected them. Their mother isnt much better with her bribery dealings etc.

Even before the Epstein revelations, they had all the media attention about their parents' divorce/lovers/the rest of it. We might say that lots of kids have to suffer due to their parents' actions, but for most it's not all over the media.

BoxingHare · 23/02/2026 23:16

Noseyoldcow · 23/02/2026 22:15

Being Royal didn’t hinder Zara for sure. But even given all the advantages, as she surely has been, it’s only fair to recognise that she is an exceptional rider to have reached the standard she has. Both her parents were also skilled event riders.

I did recognise her talent in my post.

Imbusytodaysorry · 23/02/2026 23:20

@Sweetiedarling7 Absolutely not!!!

canklesmctacotits · 23/02/2026 23:52

They’re all grifters - all monarchies, all around the world and since the beginning of time have been grifters. It’s not like any of them earned a salary and got to where they are by application and interview and successful performance. They are, by definition, grifters off the public purse which they gain access to by waging wars, marrying strategically, keeping a stable house, fending off revolution, etc.

AMW got away with it because everyone around him protected him from scrutiny. The appetite for scrutiny was there, but there were enough people with enough power to stop a proper investigation. That had to be stopped because if you ones rotate AMW you’d have to investigate them all. Let’s see what happens now. Pretty sure the only crime or misdeed he’ll be convicted of is misconduct while in public office, but the punishment will be so terrible that people will be distracted from the trade envoy stuff (and they’ll get nowhere with the SA stuff because the Americans will see to it).

Harry threw a fit because once he left the purview of the RF he could no long grift from the public via his dad.

Grifting is all they know, it’s what they’re born into. It’s in their DNA. It’s their MO, their raison d’etre, their everything. They call it service in return for being on the civil list - but it’s plan to see what it actually is. And without it none of them would be who and where they are. They protect it (the ability to grift), and use the institutions of the state to protect it at all costs.

This is why Meghan can leave and not look back. Her grifting isn’t entitled, or by virtue of birth. Hers is through endeavour but also odious because it’s utterly disproportionate to her output and with hefty doses of shoddy / dubious behaviour (some of which would be recognizable to the RF).

The RF members the public seem to warm to are the ones who keep their grifting secret or low key: Anne not buying new frocks, Queen using tupperware etc. Just enough to be less than someone else they can point to as worse than them - but still a lot. And obvs the monarch gets a total pass.

So, B&E have been raised in a family of grifters but the two most grifting of grifters. I honestly don’t think they know there’s another way. I don’t think they would be able to comprehend a world in which people didn’t give them tonnes of cash for access. They’d be amazed and splutter in disbelief: but this isn’t the way it’s meant to be! They’re pulling the rug from under us and I’ve got children and a profile and what am I meant to do nowww?? The only solution is to stop the access. I don’t think their princess titles could be taken away but I think they can be cut loose financially and in terms of access. It’s renders them “worthless”, and they’ll have to leech off their husbands and in laws.

IdentityCris · 23/02/2026 23:54

TheignT · 22/02/2026 10:12

I dont know much about them but I do remember one had surgery on her back when she was a child. She reportedly chose a wedding dress with a low back to show the scar as an example to children going through the surgery that it was nothing to be ashamed of.

No idea which one it was or if it was true but it did strike me as a positive thing to do, if she did it.

Yes, it is true. It was Eugenie.

Beatrice has had to overcome dyslexia, so neither of them has had it easy.

putini · 24/02/2026 00:22

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.

Gosh I've given it some thought, dug deep but still can't find a single shit to give

callmeLoretta1 · 24/02/2026 01:50

ItsThatWayNotThisWay · 22/02/2026 10:20

Only they're been doing their own dodgy things now, well into adulthood. Again, read Entitled and you’ll see they have everything to do with this.

Yeah because some cheap and tawdry 'tell all' book by some grifter gossip writer is the gospel truth...

tamade · 24/02/2026 02:36

Untailored · 22/02/2026 10:29

It’s very wrong and shameful of you to lump Harry and Andrew together as if they are the same. Harry has done nothing even remotely similar.

Andrew is revolting, but is he a bad apple, the one who got caught or a bit of meat for the hounds?

People at the palace knew what was going on, which means the queen knew and Charles, probably the rest of them too, including the grandchildren. So there has been a conspiracy of silence and an attempted cover up followed by whatever this is.
It is not unreasonable to wonder whether the rest were protecting the firm or actually have their own dirty secrets, KC has been very close to some pretty suspect characters through his life; I have no confidence in any of them - maybe the satellite royals like Zara are better but who knows

Patricia69 · 24/02/2026 02:45

They are as guilty as him. He has taught them all his dirty tricks , mixing with foreign royalty . What normal working woman gets to do that . They should lose their titles n b dropped like their scum parents. They knew everything

Pugsrock · 24/02/2026 03:58

One word.......WHY?

Planner2026 · 24/02/2026 04:31

It’s not going to happen. The family needs money: Andrew and Fergie are toxic waste now - no one will touch them with a barge pole - but the girls can carry on grifting in the Middle East, trading on their titles.

None of us can know but I’d hazard a guess that they’re as dreadful as their ghastly parents:
Compare the ostentatious/ expensive/ entitled wedding - tarting about Windsor in a horse-drawn carriage - with the very normal, untitled and and down-to-earth Zara Philips’s life.

This whole Andrew/ Fergie/ Epstein thing has tainted the royal family for me and called into question what sort of role they should have moving forward:
I think it’s ‘nice’ that we have a royal family and that they likely bring in tourist revenue but it think the focus should really just be on the immediate succession line and their immediate family. All the rest of them should be making their own way in life. No grace-and-favour apartments in Kensington Palace for distant aunts and uncles.

The whole thing is completely outdated, really.

2021x · 24/02/2026 06:16

Yes they should.

But they won’t.

Longleggedgiraffe · 24/02/2026 06:20

TheignT · 22/02/2026 10:12

I dont know much about them but I do remember one had surgery on her back when she was a child. She reportedly chose a wedding dress with a low back to show the scar as an example to children going through the surgery that it was nothing to be ashamed of.

No idea which one it was or if it was true but it did strike me as a positive thing to do, if she did it.

It was Eugenie, and yes, she did.

wheresthesnowgone · 24/02/2026 06:21

The only thing they have that sets them apart from anyone else and makes them feel special is their titles. They have nothing else going for them. I can't see them giving them up voluntarily.

They're as shonky as their parents.

BlackBeltInOrigami · 24/02/2026 06:21

I seem to remember at the time, Charles was opposed to AMW getting the trade envoy gig, as he would use it to further his own interests, meet women and play golf but was overruled by his mother and Tony Blair.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 24/02/2026 06:30

Why would Tony Blair allow Andrew to become a trade envoy?

simpsonthecat · 24/02/2026 07:08

callmeLoretta1 · 24/02/2026 01:50

Yeah because some cheap and tawdry 'tell all' book by some grifter gossip writer is the gospel truth...

A grifter gossip writer. Oh don't be so ridiculous. Honestly, you are completely clueless.
He is a historian, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he has written books on Edward VIII, the Mountbattens, Guy Burgess, and this book was 5 years in research with over 350 named sources listed at the front of the book. He has spent a lot of money on FOI requests and every bit of his book was legally cleared

OneFunBrickNewt · 24/02/2026 07:14

Planner2026 · 24/02/2026 04:31

It’s not going to happen. The family needs money: Andrew and Fergie are toxic waste now - no one will touch them with a barge pole - but the girls can carry on grifting in the Middle East, trading on their titles.

None of us can know but I’d hazard a guess that they’re as dreadful as their ghastly parents:
Compare the ostentatious/ expensive/ entitled wedding - tarting about Windsor in a horse-drawn carriage - with the very normal, untitled and and down-to-earth Zara Philips’s life.

This whole Andrew/ Fergie/ Epstein thing has tainted the royal family for me and called into question what sort of role they should have moving forward:
I think it’s ‘nice’ that we have a royal family and that they likely bring in tourist revenue but it think the focus should really just be on the immediate succession line and their immediate family. All the rest of them should be making their own way in life. No grace-and-favour apartments in Kensington Palace for distant aunts and uncles.

The whole thing is completely outdated, really.

It's been categorically shown that they don't 'bring in tourist money.' Remove them and you'll acually make more money from tourists as they can visit more of the palaces etc. People still visit Versailles even though their royals got guillotined. And even if they do bring in tourist money, that's not a reason for carrying on with something because it's wrong.

tamade · 24/02/2026 07:30

OneFunBrickNewt · 24/02/2026 07:14

It's been categorically shown that they don't 'bring in tourist money.' Remove them and you'll acually make more money from tourists as they can visit more of the palaces etc. People still visit Versailles even though their royals got guillotined. And even if they do bring in tourist money, that's not a reason for carrying on with something because it's wrong.

Excellent point

2dogsandabudgie · 24/02/2026 08:34

OneFunBrickNewt · 24/02/2026 07:14

It's been categorically shown that they don't 'bring in tourist money.' Remove them and you'll acually make more money from tourists as they can visit more of the palaces etc. People still visit Versailles even though their royals got guillotined. And even if they do bring in tourist money, that's not a reason for carrying on with something because it's wrong.

You're contradicting yourself there and proving that you have no idea regarding the royal family and tourism.

Bunny65 · 24/02/2026 08:46

It’s not just about tourism. They are part of the British constitution.

nicepotoftea · 24/02/2026 08:52

2dogsandabudgie · 24/02/2026 08:34

You're contradicting yourself there and proving that you have no idea regarding the royal family and tourism.

If the goal of the Royal family were to attract tourists (and I admit that I don’t know how that is supposed to work given that they don’t meet tourists) you have to question whether it is ethical to force the next generation into that role, given what we know about what it involves.

simpsonthecat · 24/02/2026 08:54

nicepotoftea · 24/02/2026 08:52

If the goal of the Royal family were to attract tourists (and I admit that I don’t know how that is supposed to work given that they don’t meet tourists) you have to question whether it is ethical to force the next generation into that role, given what we know about what it involves.

But the kids hug strangers! Isn't that enough?!

LemonTT · 24/02/2026 09:03

Abby23 · 23/02/2026 21:53

What have they done?…

They have done nothing to deserve titles of state. They have done nothing for this country. Those titles of state are unearned.

They do by the way earn huge amounts of money via nebulous consultancies they operate. If that is through merit they won’t need titles.

notwavingbutdrowning1 · 24/02/2026 10:33

Bunny65 · 24/02/2026 08:46

It’s not just about tourism. They are part of the British constitution.

The monarch is part of the constitution. The rest are not.

Swipe left for the next trending thread