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.

That’s a scathing article thank you for sharing @ThePoshUns

also re the whole purse thing possibly happens in some family businesses, aristocracy and farming families.

The rules being not getting caught rather than behaving well I assume?

OK, so why are you asking?

I thought we were talking about the Yorks

As far as I am aware codes of conduct in firms or businesses don’t have that clause. If you bring a company into disrepute by your behaviour, expect to receive consequences for your actions just as we have seen recently, and not just in the royal family.

You asked the question in response to a post about the likelihood of Harry and Meghan coming back (which had been suggested by a PP)? So how could you be talking about the Yorks?

No idea. I'm only here intermittently and I've lost track of it all. I thought the Yorks as that's what the thread is.

Are you seriously joking?😯

😬 Who decided that? There's been rumours about him for years apparently

Although, to be fair, don't some of the other Royals have somewhat undesirable god parents?

It once again begs the question of does no one give the Royals advice regarding people in their orbits? I'm struggling to understand the sheer amount of casualness that I am seeing regarding the quality of their chums and hangers on. I guess the slackness in prior vetting goes way back to Charles entertaining Saville.

Except most firms or businesses don’t cover up for their dodgy employees for over fifteen years and then only act in response to public outcry. And those that do, tend to be hiding a lot of dodginess themselves.

I thought the Yorks too since their father has been sex trafficking. And well you could also then say the rest of royals mix with dubious people since Andrew is still a family member and they were seen next to him for all those years, joone has really.cpme.out to say they have gone nc with him whatsoever other than one of his daughters.

Perhaps but its understandable as generations go on that its not really sustainable and that some may come to resent that set up.

Would you be raising you children up to not be equal...thats a pretty crap thing to be doing, what do you expect to happen if you do..that one child is more worthy than the other because they will own everything, that you are not equal. We see this on inheritance threads all the time where siblings are treated equally...

Well we don’t know that do we? We only know about cover ups when they actually come out anyway that wasn’t the point raised by the previous poster, they were appalled that a spare would have to behave in an appropriate manner to receive monetary support from the head of the firm, I was pointing out it’s it not an unreasonable expectation, like any other business.

“The rules being not getting caught rather than behaving well I assume ? ……….”
Spot on @Distantscreamsfortoast

Scathing indeed!

"By the age of 19, the words “Princess Beatrice” were usually found in the same sentence as “on holiday”......

[ Beatrice ] first took a gap year. In the space of roughly four months, she visited Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Belgium, the pyramids, Abu Dhabi and New York, with a skiing trip thrown in for good measure. In the first four months of 2011 she went on ten holidays,........She once managed 18 holidays in a single year, December 2014 to December 2015, all of them accompanied by her police protection officers, at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £250,000

£256,000 was being spent refurbishing a four-bedroom flat at St James’s Palace in which she would live while at Goldsmiths, and for which her father would pay a peppercorn rent of £1,600 a month. It was, Beatrice explained, “kinder” for her to live there, because it would free up a place in a hall of residence for another student.

My sister read anthropology at Goldsmiths. It's well known for its modern art teaching and has a lovely textiles archive. A fairly large international cohort. The surrounding area is perfect...if you're into art, lots of urban clubs, and cuisine from around the world. Refreshing and stimulating to the senses from that pov. But I guess it would be a real culture shock for a Princess and look somewhat like a ghetto by comparison to her usual hangouts. Nonetheless she chose to go there? So why? Why was she there in the first place and not one of the more pedigree universities?

How 'above your betters' is it that you choose to live in a palace. Was it security issues? And all that fluff about it not being 'not being fair to a poorer student' as if the only choices are basic student digs or a suite in a palace. I could understand renting a space in one of the decent houses or trendier flats nearby, Greenwich is round the corner, but rooms in St James? I'm surprised she seemed to learn nothing from mingling with the sorts of tenacious down to earth students you would encounter at Goldsmiths.

I didn’t say it was right, I was musing more that I’m sure, it happens in other families, so not peculiar to the RF.

If you view the RF, as a company, then there is the President, vice President and the Chief Executives of other departments with the President as their head. I think 😁

“……,I guess the slackness in prior vetting goes way back to Charles entertaining Saville.”
Possibly further back .
Google Kincora Boys Home Belfast. 🥲

Oops my post was for @TightlyLacedCorset

I’d love to know where Eugenie lived while at Newcastle University.

In all royal families around the world there is one child who is more worthy than the other, it’s been like that for a millennia, longer in some cases, it’s just the way it is.

But seemingly only a problem when it’s the British royal family. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Meghan doesn’t ‘thrive’ under the camera, she ‘performs’. almost in a slapstick manner, she usually looks so unnatural and weird when there are cameras in any close proximity, she pivots and makes head adjustments to ensure she is in the frame.

Finding her light.

She’ll be emanating it next. Like a halo.

TightlyLacedCorset · Today 13:34
It once again begs the question of does no one give the Royals advice regarding people in their orbits? I'm struggling to understand the sheer amount of casualness that I am seeing regarding the quality of their chums and hangers on. I guess the slackness in prior vetting goes way back to Charles entertaining Saville.

It's an interesting question of why Thatcher maintained a close friendship with Saville and the government didn't vet Saville properly despite warnings - instead she endorsed him strongly - appointing him to chair the Broadmoor hospital task force and even giving him keys to the hospital. Plus appointing him to lead oversight of the Stoke Mandeville spinal injuries unit and overruling concerns to give him the Knighthood....

Thinking about Beatrice and holidays
-the gap year - I'm not sure what the benefit is of detailing every destination. Don't plenty of well-off middle and upper class young people travel on gap years?
-the number - Criticism or envy? Plenty of young people with trust funds will go on multiple holidays. Could she afford them?
-the security - probably the main issue. Did she need the security? Was it assessed by RAVEC at that time in the same way as it currently is? Should there have been a limit set to holidays abroad?

As ever! 😂