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.

I think transparency over all of the royals finances would do a great deal to restore public trust in the institution.

Agree. It is outrageous and should have attracted more attention that William has decided to be less transparent as PoW than Charles was.

This is a good article on the topic

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=meredithconstant.substack.com/p/prince-william-is-considerably-less&ved=2ahUKEwjHqbGvz6aTAxUpZkEAHboWJHUQFnoECE4QAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw0ktxXJQUhVkB0n9tqPf0Zf

I agree that it should be more straightforward to find clear information about the structure of royal finances.
Most of the information is publicly available, but in different places.

Not a particularly good article. I wouldn't say 'considerably less transparent' is reasonable when the only difference is the disclosure of a single number (which is private in the UK).

There was a thread a few months ago on William's tax.

I differ to you blueegreygreen. The fact William doesn't disclose his tax is only a tiny part of that article. It was mentioned as an aside really

It talks about reforming the finances into a 'National Estate' which is very relevant

True transparency over finances would see the end of the lot of them. The Paradise Papers revealed money stashed away in offshore tax havens and other investments that were questionable. I’ll bet there’s a whole lot more than that. Not to mention other stuff we know a bit about, like dodgy sources of income, the flogging off of royal gifts, peppercorn rents etc etc, and don’t get me started on the Rent-a-Royal aspect of things!

Wow that’s absolutely sickening.

Show’s you the hold that Trump and his dirty cabal of rapists of trafficked teenagers have on the whole commercial, social and institutional system over there.

”Unreadable” is a bit harsh on Andrew Lownie. There is a lot of itemisation of pounds, shillings and pence in that book but all the detail is what gives it power. In comparison with, for example, the new Tom Bower book about H&M. I am not a fan of H&M at all but the Bower extracts in the Times just read like a long angry opinion column. It doesn't seem to have any new facts or new sources.

I know you do simpsonthecat 😊. We come at this from different viewpoints, but I hope can debate in a friendly way.

I mentioned 'considerably less transparent' because it was the title. I agree it is a small part - there are several other parts that to me make it not a great article. Having the discussion is good.

I am sure if there are blatant lies H and M will sue …

'Unpublishable' and Unreadable' aren't my words, it's the reasons given by the publisher for not publishing Lownie's book in the US. I don't think for one minute that's the real reason it wasn't published. That was my point.
No idea what Tom Bower's book on H&M has to do with it. 🤷‍♀️

Yes, I am all for sources and Lownie has a lot of those who are prepared to be named.
Trump is on a rampage trying to shut down any voices who disagree with him... that goes for federal judges, news stations, Senators, anyone and knowing that his name is cited and redacted 38,000 times in the Epstein files, he will not want any book that dwells on Epstein, especially when it involves a Royal. I think some Americans would lap it up... saliciousness about a member of our royal Family!

Oh my! I agree with Jennie Bond! Absolutely unheard of and I have to say when she has turned against you somewhat, you really should be sitting up and taking notice.

“The York women have a lot to be grateful for,” writes Jenny Bond.
“They are both happily married to successful businessmen. They have beautiful homes: Beatrice in the Cotswolds and Eugenie in Portugal. They have children to care for and careers to pursue.”
“Do they really need the trappings of royalty? And don’t they care about embarrassing the King?”

(This is my point exactly, why are they hanging on by their fingernails. I know a lot of great posts have explained why they think so, but this is just another bit of puzzlement from me!)

At the end she says this...
They don’t have official roles and they are perfectly capable of standing on their own two feet. They might earn some public respect if they did just that

So agree.

inews.co.uk/opinion/beatrice-eugenie-embarrassing-king-giving-up-perks-royalty-4293244?fbclid=IwY2xjawQmPjhleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETBqYWN3MjRTM1lITTh6cmFmc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgpswSNuGcmN7wtX9QASIjwztJuvozntBrc8wVUysDYDDMuniUFJnTpkcWQo_aem_6XTxUeOHACTXZF9LR8E9XQ

While transparency would be welcome I think the public trust ship sailed a while back and couldn't now be recalled to port with a simple statement of accounts however detailed. They have too many other questions to answer.

It is outrageous and should have attracted more attention that William has decided to be less transparent as PoW than Charles was.

While I fully agree it's worth pointing out that C3 has now stopped providing even the minimal information released in previous years and sailed almost entirely under the radar in doing so

While transparency would be welcome I think the public trust ship sailed a while back and couldn't now be recalled to port with a simple statement of accounts however detailed.

It is worth pointing out, for anyone on the thread who doesn't know, that annual accounts for the Sovereign Grant, Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall are all public documents and readily available.

The Sovereign Grant accounts are reviewed by the National Audit Office; the accounts of the Duchies are independently audited and are reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee.

It's an interesting opinion piece and definitely a shot across the bows when a long-standing royal arselicker turns but I think she's wrong when she says any rent paid reverts to the SG.

IMO She's also probably wrong when she thinks either blood princess could now earn any respect from the public most of whom I suspect believe the active speculation they are up to their eyeballs in family sleaze.

Yep.

Creative accounting has never been a thing...

I am all in favour of all the transparency going re RF finances.
I get that KCIII doesn't want to inflict the sins of the father etc but in all honesty why should B&E be in receipt of Crown properties at below market rent (by all accounts) . They aren't WRF ( and even if they were they should be paying market rent - but for this post I'm leaving that wider debate to one side)

If not being welcome to join the Royal party at Ascot gives these two young women a big hint that they need to sweep their stables clean then I'm all for that. It's a small step but I suspect with all MW's previous banging on about "blood princesses " they will know this is a major snub. Might not matter to the likes of me , but it is a snub methinks. How they decided they wouldn't agree to their finances being subject to an ethics oversight. I don't know. Now I know there are those who will say - so should PW's - I would not necessarily disagree. But for the purposes of this thread , these two, B&E are somewhat in the eye of the storm and one would think they would be doing all they can to clear what family name is left to them.

Being ostracised from the Royal bit of Ascot I reckon will come as a bit of a blow to them & that and publicity about it I reckon will hit them hard. ( Cheekily I hope in the pocket when some middle eastern royals realise B&E ain't quite so connected as they thought they were - Oh Oh did I say that out loud 😂) Shame on me 😊

I didn’t say they were your words. I just think the US publishers were harsh to describe his book as unreadable. Even/especially if that wasn’t the real reason they bailed.

As for Tom Bower, I mention that by way of comparison and contrast. I find unsourced rants about the Royals rather unreadable. And as I said, I am no fan of H&M and it’s clear there’s been an almighty hush up about her (alleged) bullying and very enthusiastic use of NDAs to silence their legions of unhappy former employees, but so far the extracts haven’t cast any new light on any of this, or anything else. For £25 I’d expect more than the revelation that some Invictus Games events were sparsely attended.

@BasiliskStare I would imagine they wouldn’t want an ethics check because they were afraid of the outcome. It seems they have received a few cash gifts from their parents’ friends.

How they decided they wouldn't agree to their finances being subject to an ethics oversight. I don't know.

I think the only conclusion to be drawn is they wouldn't pass.

I agree with you - there is nothing new - only a consolidation of everything already known - maybe pulling a thread through it which is compounding.

Am I right in saying there were only 3 excerpts in The Times ? If so then I assume there is a lot more in the actual book .

Apparently he quoted trolls in this new book of his. Trolls? That was the interviewers’ question too. They seemed quite stunned. I wouldn’t pay to read what I could read for free on the internet - if I was interested in the opinions of trolls. Bowers was interviewed on This Morning. Trolls. From the Horse’s mouth, as they say. I saw a clip of the interview and then went on a bit of a deepish dive.

Sam Kashner who wrote the original Vanity Fair piece on Meghan (before she married Harry), wrote a letter to the Times after it published an excerpt from Bower’s book Revenge. He corrected Bowers. Also, Bowers had written something about how the P&G dishwashing ad challenge didn’t happen.

“Sir, I'm afraid Tom Bower didn't convey my admiration and respect for Meghan Markle in the excerpt from his new book in The Times Saturday ("Writer 'felt manipulated' by Meghan").

"I found Ms Markle to be exceptionally warm and gracious and admired her intelligence and her remarkable courage, as I still do.
"I regretted the oft-published account of challenging Proctor & Gamble being edited out of my Vanity Fair article, because I'd wanted to highlight her lifelong activism. The piece itself was quite laudatory."

At as my rate I’d not buy a book by any man that says they are after a woman - It’s Meghan I’m after.’

edited to add that the rest of the Kashner letter to The Times is in the article linked.

Sam Kashner -Vanity Fair - Times letter

You don’t have to read it , it’s not compulsory.