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.

17 holidays with taxpayer funded protection officers with her all the way is a joke.
I don't think it is normal for anyone to do that many, rich or not.
Our middle class DCs ( I suppose they're MC) one went interrailing in Europe on a £250 ticket for a month, and one did some voluntary work in Bulgaria
17 holidays 😂🤣🤣😂😅

I’m not sure the dates are right in that article because I thought both Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security officers in 2011 - Andrew was furious at the time.

What this got to do with this thread about B&E.

And so much for modernising then. Otd all lip service.

And if this is how its been fine but that doesn't take away from why its easy to see why the spares and beyond (grandkids) have issues and resentment grows. If you have two child growing up one child is favoured one you can't blame the other child for then feeling left out, less than , resentful etc. Its alot to ask of a child to just accept it who hasn't even developed enough to understand it properly.

Andrew may well have felt the same, wanted to have more money himself a more luxury lifestyle ...nothing wrong with that then be beholden to whatever handout he got and restricted in how to earn more money since instead or nurturing proper careers just became working royals...well here we are and his children somewhat doing things to earn money thag may be shady. Not excusing what he did at all or how he did it but lets be honest this archaic 'this is how it is' clearly isn't working.

It doesn’t, I was replying to a poster on this thread who said Meghan thrives in front of the camera.

I don't understand why we pay for their secuirty when they are doing personal things like holidays isn't that what their inheritance and allowances are for to cover the costs of their personal lives.

If they had that then the rest of then do too..Anne, Sophie, Edward etc.

Yes I think it was 2011 that their security was removed as they were non-working Royals.

It was Charles' suggestion to streamline the costs of the RF. But IIRC the arguments rumbled on for at least 5 years after this with AMW wanting to shoehorn them into working royal roles - I think the infamous "blood princess" letter to QEII in 2016 was a part of AMW's campaign to give his daughters special status and privileges for being "born royal"

“When Princess Beatrice goes to Davos or Saudi Arabia, it’s not as Mrs Mapelli Mozzi,” Lownie says, “it’s as HRH Princess Beatrice, even though she’s not representing anyone except herself.”

I think that encapsulates everything about them.

I don’t think that altering the rules of succession to appease a disgruntled spare and all those that come after the spare is a way to modernise the monarchy! It would be carnage 😂 so what do you suggest all monarchies across the globe do to make it “fair”?

Its not about appearing a spare...wow what an attitude you have about children.

As I have said the children need to all be raised up out of public view until they are adults and to be raised knowing they all need jobs. Of course with the heir he can start his royal training after he is 18. There is plenty of time for the future heir to be trained up, since most kings/queens live to a very old age.

Beggars belief anyone actually thinks its ok to raise children up where there is clear inequality between then and somehow think these kids at a young age should just be okay about it. Then raising them to be working royals to be dependent on their brother for money, to have to behave how he wants them to lest he takes away their allowance.

There is no alternating the rules of succession here the first child will always be future heir regardless.

How would we have a monarchy that is fair to all children of the monarch while still maintaining that the first born child is the future heir?

Because if you raise them all up equally and to have education and careers and jobs to earn their own money it wont matter so much that the first born then has an additional duty they have to do and they are old enough to actually understand what it all means pros and cons.

so agree.

I think one of the harder things is managing everyone else’s attitudes towards the children growing up.

Princess Anne talked about one of her nannies who was much nicer to Charles than her when she was a child.

One of the late Queen’s cousins has talked about going to a family gathering when they were young and their mother sprinting out the then Princess Elizabeth as the one to be extra nice to.

And although Harry’s extra sausage complaint seems trivial it’s possible that even subconsciously the staff were automatically favouring William.

But they are already educated and they have had jobs. I mean William had a job as an air rescue pilot. That's not suddenly produced equality in the RF or addressed Harry's feelings of Inequality. The problem is it's not equality if they all know that (for example) Charles just has to play at serving in the Armed Forces/the diplomatic service for a few years before he goes off to be King and Andrew and Edward need to actually generate a long term income. It's not equality when Charles' children have long term roles (or they did before Harry left) and Anne/Andrew/Edward's don't.

And although Harry’s extra sausage complaint seems trivial it’s possible that even subconsciously the staff were automatically favouring William

Absolutely. And anyone who has been brought up in a family where there is a favourite knows this. I'm sure both staff and parents favour the heir in some ways, subtle though it might be.

Well of you employ staff you instruct them to be treated equally. Why does the future heir need to know his role until he is an adult anyway, let the kids be kids grow up educated and when they are 18 tell them

lol - 18? I think most kids would work it out before then!

I believe Paul Burrell said that one of the staff said to William he is to get an extra sausage as he is the future heir and this was said infront of Harry at a very young agem sorry but of course any child is going to grow up feeling like they are not wanted, not important not treated the same.

My nephews for example, the youngest wants what the oldest has, same food, same clothes they do at a young age idolise their sibling, look up to them and mirror them. Its quite common. You ca explain to a young child whose brain isnt developed eboigh to understand something so complicated and tell them they are loved the same etc. They won't get it.

I can see what Harry was trying ro say about the sausages its not he didnt get a third one its that he was never an equal etc. Its alot to ask and put on a child.

I don’t believe that for a second! , if William got an extra sausage ( 🙄 ) it’s more likely because he was older and ate more!

also why are there comments about h and m being mentioned on “ the Yorks “ thread to some posters and not others!

Life is not fair, as the unequal sausaging has shown us!

True ! Obviously mn has a hierarchy too!

Let’s hope Harry and Meghan remember this when bringing up their children, I mean it would be awful for them to push one child to be front and centre whilst ignoring the other one, particularly if it’s done publicly, say for example on social media, always showing one child off more than the other, and I do hope they don’t leave one child out of taking over the family business, that would be really mean and unfair……. 🤔

www.independent.co.uk/tv/lifestyle/meghan-markle-lilibet-business-podcast-listen-b2763324.html

Exactly, look at the height difference as children! of course William needed more food! In other news my older sister got the bigger bedroom and I had her hand me down clothes! the trauma has scarred me for life.