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.

@Totallyfedupnow
You don't seem to understand about coercion and manipulation within a sex trafficking pyramid. So Maxwell pressures a 17yo girl who she targeted at a trailer park to go off and find a friend to come too, and yes that friend might too be eligible for the modelling course uncle Jeffrey might send you on. So girl 1 is just as guilty as Maxwell from what you are saying

Some of the women who ended up procuring others said that they were manipulated into believing that it was fine for them to introduce other girls, many of whom were friends, as the latter would not have to give Epstein a massage or have sex with him.However, some of them had the courage to speak out and file a report more than once with the police. But they found, to their horror, that Epstein had manipulated the system so much that their cases didn’t progress.

Many of them wanted to escape but could not, as they were threatened by Maxwell who had them followed and investigated, and blackmailed them to the extent that they were too petrified to do anything.

I believe you are the one with fixed ideas. You seem to say that anyone who brought along a friend is just as guilty. You say they are guilty whoever is doing the recruiting
This is just not true.

Robert Maxwell was a hideous narcissistic controlling abuser and that was to the people in his family

I think the officer cleaner had more rights in RM’s eyes than his 2 sons

Robert Maxwell ran the company and no one else had any other say in the matter. It was his way only and I get the impression if either DS left the family and business RM would not let go of the control and he would go out of his way to make sure no one would hire either of them again.

Even though GM was his favourite daughter I do think he was abusive to her but in a different way to his other children. Being the golden child can be a very lonely place. RM knew all of his children’s flaws and weaknesses and used this knowledge against everyone of them, including GM

Whilst I don’t condone GM’s crimes I do think RM was abusive to all his children and the abuse and the effects of the abuse didn’t stop just because her father died. GM isn’t any different to other victims of abuse and the affect it had on her.

There is a certain symetry in her relationship with Epstein. Here was another abusive power hungry controlling narcissist. GM would feel at home dealing with this type of man. She after all had a lifetime of experience behind her.

I remember reading an interview with the wife of one of the sons. It was a puff piece about life in the household of a newspaper mogul and reading it just made you think about how awful it all sounded. The inference was that her dh was reduced to a shell of a man battling his father on what could or couldn’t be done when it came to running the business. It alluded to RM being someone who wouldn’t take no for an answer and because he owned the company he would do with it as he pleased. I remembered that piece and wonder if it wasn’t some coded way to get authorities to step in and stop what was going on

So whilst the 2 sons were arrested and charged, when it came to court they were acquitted because it could be proved that whilst they tried to stop their father from taking money from the company RM refused to ever take no for an answer and went behind their backs and did it anyway

Agree and fortunately the justice system understands that these young teenagers were under so much threat to their own lives and those of their families that they carried out the orders of their abusers.

So no need to worry about the misogynistic ignorance of these vicious victim blamers.

I am going to step away from responding to certain posters, because it makes me frustrated and to be honest, angry. I know first hand about coercion and manipulation within a scenario like this.

Thx folks

https://archive.ph/dayWJ

A Times article I have archived because it is behind a paywall

As I thought, Beatrice and Eugenie are keeping their royal properties at St. James Palace and Kensington Palace at reduced rents, because of a deal struck by their father with Charles.

Why on earth AMW holds any power whatsoever to negotiate anything, I do not know

Really, you can’t think of any bargaining power he might have?

Patience @simpsonthecat patience. The article describes the current position but near the end states: “Royal properties will face further scrutiny later this year when the public accounts committee investigates rental agreements between members of the royal family and the Crown Estate, the public body whose profits are returned to the UK exchequer.

As well as rental agreements with the Crown Estate, the royal family also has the use of official royal residences, including Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Holyroodhouse and Kensington Palace. Within the royal residences, grace and favour homes are provided to staff and relatives.”

If B and E have indefinite legal tenancies of these properties and are paying the designated rent and not breaking any of the Ts and Cs then Charles may not easily be able to give them notice. He struggled to get Andrew out of Royal Lodge as had a long lease and Charles has to follow the law.

But all the facts of the Times article have also been reported this week by the Daily Mail. I think this is the beginning of the effort to get them to give up these tenancies by getting facts out in the public domain and getting public opinion to be they should move out. The findings of the public accounts committee will also be fully reported. I still remember when there was uproar after it was disclosed that Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were renting an apartment at Kensington Palace for about £70 a week! That was quickly rectified with a more market rent. I think they had to sell their Cotswolds home to help pay the new rent as they couldn’t afford to keep two homes.

How the situation has arisen again with B and E I don’t know but being told they are not welcome at Royal Ascot and then articles appearing about their royal properties are, IMO, strong signals they are going to be ‘encouraged’ out of the palaces.

I don’t think that them being banned from Ascot and these questions arising about them living in Royal Palaces is because they are innocent relatives of AMW - it’s because the Palace knows their accounts are murky - they have been offered an ethical accounting review and refused.

Why would that be?

Hmmm Hello also reported just this week on the Kent’s living arrangements. Apparently they still only pay £120k a year for a 5 bed apartment in Kensington Palace. That public accounts committee review is going to have a lot to look at. Much more sympathetic reporting here though given her recent stroke.

Not to pre empt the findings but it’s likely to find some rents need to be put up A LOT. These people probably can’t afford the market rents so will either give the homes up (the York women) or the King will step in and agree to pay (the Kents, the Gloucesters if they have one etc). You need to be on the right side of Charles and William and it appears the York princesses no longer are. Hopefully they can be supported by their husbands and go quietly as we do not need a book called ‘Daughters of the Original Spare’.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/888247/princess-michael-kent-palatial-home-downsized/

Enlighten me!

I presume you mean writing a book spilling the beans

I think their historic accounts must be full of dodgy transactions. Enough has been reported to conclude that. But that isn’t a legal reason to terminate a tenancy so Charles needs to rely on public outrage and the hope that the princesses would like to keep their public reputations as clean as possible and leave quietly.

Well he wouldn’t have to write a book, but as someone who was a senior royal for decades, I’m sure he knows where several bodies are buried. I expect early on he also appealed to Charles’s better nature and asked him to protect B+E as they hadn’t done anything wrong. Not sure their blameless status is quite as secure as it used to be. But I imagine that B+E’s continuing place in the family is an important bargaining chip for Charles. The last thing he needs is the Yorks feeling like they have nothing left to lose.

I have to say, the Yorks have more brazenness (if that's a word) than anyone. If it were me, I would do anything to avoid press scrutiny at this stage of their Father's investigation, and as both daughters are relatively wealthy, I think not stepping back and going quiet, giving up the grace and favour London pads, is just pure brass neck.

If they went quiet for a couple of years, perhaps they could come back into the fold, but with it all so ongoing, I just think they are burning their chances.

I guess it depends on how dodgy they turn out to be, and we don’t really know that yet. I’m sure the RF are digging away as we speak to try and figure out what else is coming. If B+E are not particularly dodgy, then it doesn’t benefit either side to punish them. Not good for Charles to come across as vindictive, and also better for the RF if Andrew’s behaviour is some weird aberration - just one bad apple (or two with his ex wife) - rather than symptomatic of the whole lot of them. Although that argument is rather weakened by Harry and Meghan also coming across as greedy grifters with poor taste in benefactors, unfortunately.

I am not talking about Charles demanding the grace and favour propertiesback. I am saying them giving them up voluntarily.

But that would still look like they had done something wrong, and also people would no doubt speculate that they had been encouraged (at the very least) to give them up. So even if it’s their decision, Charles still looks vindictive and the RF as a whole more tainted, with the ‘bad apple’ narrative less plausible. Although as I said, that becomes increasingly less plausible anyway, the more Harry and Meghan sell personal appearances and get mixed up with the likes of Tyler Perry.

I don't understand your post or what Harry and Meghan have to do with the conversation.

I am just saying that if they voluntarily said they were stepping back for the time being, they were giving up their grace and favour royal properties, that they loved their Father but they understand there is an ongoing investigation (or words better than that) a lot of people would have far more respect for them, and there might be a way back if this was to all die down.

I have said it many times, probably earlier on in this thread, I don’t know why they live in these properties. I think someone replied to me on a thread that they pay market rents. I highly doubt they could afford market rents.

They don't!

They pay a fraction of market rents, I linked to a Times article more or less saying this, earlier today.

One of their properties market rate is anything up to £19,000 a month! As if they pay that 😂

They aren't working Royals, why have they got them? At least the Kents and the Gloucesters used to do duties, and some still do.

Any opportunity to shoehorn them in thays why not to me tion since the DM article comparing them to Andrew and Fergie there is concerted effort on sm to basically say they are the next Andrew & Fergie and yet again more about Epstein and Andrew come sout and suddenly there is a big uptick in H&M bashing articles in the press just like last time. Its so obvious yet people still get brainwashed by it.

Back to you other points I dont know why they are still living in royal residences time they moved out. I cannot fathom how this is a good look for the institution at all.

Its time the properties were returned back to us and opened up as tourist places to generate money for us instead of us paying for these people who use wealth and power to cause harm.

I’d love AMW or the grim Ferguson to write a tell-all. It would be hilarious. Full of petty scandal and full of woe.

But that won’t happen whilst Charles keeps them sweet, and that involves keeping the daughters onside. Especially if one or both of the ambitious husbands do a flit (although this part would not be something to laugh about with minor children involved).

I’d love AMW or the grim Ferguson to write a tell-all. It would be hilarious. Full of petty scandal and full of woe.

But that won’t happen whilst Charles keeps them sweet, and that involves keeping the daughters onside. Especially if one or both of the ambitious husbands do a flit (although this part would not be something to laugh about with minor children involved).

I agree @simpsonthecat

All these artificial distinctions - oh B and E are not ‘working’ royals ( newsflash - not one of the Windsors works in any real sense ) so they do not cost the taxpayer .
Yet this housing if it is true ( more secrecy- it should all be in black in white somewhere we can access the info ) is a benefit in kind . A benefit worth a great deal of money - it all ultimately costs the tax payer
What does Edward pay for that huge mansion?

William and Charles do not own the Duchys yet are pocketing over 50 million a year- that costs the tax payer too. And they charge public services on top!

Even Anne’s children - they are selling their connection to the Mountbatten Windsors . Would anyone pay Peter to advertise milk were he not Anne’s son?

I hope a thorough investigation is being done re all the grifting and greed of the whole lot of them .

Exactly. If they ever want to ride in a carriage at Ascot again and want you to remain HRH they should do what Charles and William want (which could be leave the apartments or could be pay a true market rent) and keep entirely out of the spotlight for a few years. William is likely to modernise the title structure to protect his children and the monarchy from potential scandals from both York and California. Sweden removed HRHs from all the king’s grandchildren except the children of the crown princess a few years ago. William could decide HRH is for working royals and their children only when he is king.

I agree with @Ukisgaslit and others. Given how little work William and Kate do, I think it is unwise to make these distinctions between working and not working royals.