Beatrice and Eugenie banned from Ascot

[Viviennemary]

Beatrice and Eugenie have been banned from the royal box at Ascot and from royal events in the foreseeable future. That's according to a headline in the Daily Mail. A little part of me feels a bit sorry for them as they're not their parents. I don't like them much but they do seem to symbolise all that's wrong with the royals. Money and immense wealth and priviledge for very little return.

It was your use of the word demand I was querying . I was interested to know when the late Queen demanded a horse.

Sorry to ask again but could someone archive this please ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-15624405/tax-exile-tycoons-plan-pay-100-000-Beatrice-Eugenie.html

I love how lots of you actually believe what the DM prints. Over the years, I've never known it to print the actual truth about anything. It has proven to be biased, twisted, and divisive.
Besides which, two women cannot attend the grossly cruel, and grotesque wealth fest, that is Ascot. Boohoo! Oh dear, how sad, never mind

Here you go.

https://archive.ph/EqFHZ

You obviously haven't read the article, it's a bit much to expect me to C&P from it! (it was two horses actually)

Eugenie has stepped down from the anti-slavery charity. Because she knows there are more dodgy revelations coming?

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/888123/princess-eugenie-steps-down-anti-slavery-charity-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-fallout/

Hmm.

Jumped or pushed?

I think, as other posters have said, it’s becoming clearer that the machinery of the royal family has already spotted glaring issues with B&E’s finances. Or, rather, that the ‘family gifts’ from ‘family friends’ excuses won’t wash any more in light of the Epstein files providing the detailed and rather seedy context.

Not a fan of Isabel Oakeshott phoning it in from Dubai, though - or has she evacuated herself to Skeggers now?

It was on a trip to Germany 1978. Valued then at £50k. Apparently they were to be a gift!!! And there were 2

The charity paid out 2 X in salaries than it handed out. Still, a nice earner whilst it lasted.

The Guardian article is a little more factual… I think pushed.

She hasn’t stepped down from the Anti Slavery Collective (her own charity). She has stepped down from Anti Slavery International - the world’s oldest human rights organization founded in 1839 - which she was patron of for 7 years. Although there is no statement from her so perhaps she was dropped: “Eugenie’s profile has been removed from Anti-Slavery International’s website, which previously hailed her work “across the board with leaders in the fight against modern slavery”.”

From the article: She co-founded the separate charity, the Anti-Slavery Collective, with her friend Julia de Boinville, in 2017. In the year ending 5 April 2025, the charity spent more than twice as much on salaries (£191,537) as charitable programmes (£97,206), leading the Charity Commission to address concerns over expenditure.

Which, reading between the lines, tells me she has potentially been funnelling ASC donations to herself as salary and this, along with the Epstein files, means the highly regarded ASI have decided to drop her to preserve their reputation.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/08/princess-eugenie-daughter-of-prince-andrew-steps-down-as-patron-of-anti-slavery-charity

Agree it reads more on the side of being pushed.

I wonder if there's been some kind of quiet heads-up on the findings of the CC probe into her own AS collective?

And as the verb ‘demand ‘ is being queried - that as perfectly reasonable choice when Elizabeth Windsor had specified height colour and breeding of the horses

This was in 1978 and it was the most expensive ‘gift’ the German state had given since ww2. The sheer greed of that family.Again exploiting her role for personal gain - but that’s the ‘firm’ isn’t it ?

Financial greed is the least of it . It’s the pedophiles among them and the cover ups that disturb me .

The anti slavery charity Andrew’s daughter started- it’s a bit on the nose ,isn’t it ?

Who knows - maybe she’s been helping the police and donating large sums of her own money to charity ?

On the other hand, it has echoes of William’s attempt to set himself up as some sort of homelessness champion while simultaneously ripping off state services, refusing to confirm his tax status and seizing acres for his ( 4th ? 5th? ) forever home .

To me most if not all Windsor ‘charity’ stinks of a pr think tank - where are they vulnerable to criticism ? Set up a charity that will shut people up.

Why are you victim blaming?

@simpsonthecatYou are just parroting what you have read with no understanding of racing, breeding, stud books or money.

@simpledeer Apologies.

Think what you like. There's no need to be rude however.

Because they want to defend the princesses, so are happy to throw the actual victims under the bus.
Forelock tuggers.

She’s not all wrong though. Not every young woman who gave Epstein “massages” or had other dealings with his cabal was trafficked. Some of them had other choices, and some of them made bad choices (eg recruiting others).

I’m afraid this is pretty damning, especially the bit about E setting up her own charity and the costs being more than the donations.

I fear that is a model that had been prevalent within her family and within some of these privileged circles where the grifters hide in plain sight, feeling smug about their charitable work, while profiting from the attendant first class flights, new clothes and fancy dinners. It makes me sick actually.

Why not just donate the money fair and square?

Again , victim blaming.

I agree. This person has no clue about coercion of young vulnerable girls who were promised all sorts. VG recruited, it doesn't make her less of a victim. Unless you don't know how manipulation and coercion works of course

@simpsonthecat Rude? By saying you don’t know much? Tell me what you do know about horse breeding and racing then?

I have quoted from a guardian article, if you don't like what it is saying, maybe contact the journalist who wrote it.

You obviously never read the original comment I was replying to. No ones blaming the victims. Quite the opposite.