Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Beatrice, Eugenie, and Kate: Friends or Foes?

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Over the past year in law school I had very detailed schedules for my days and one of the first items on my morning list was "Coffee & Kate." While the coffee pot gurgled and dripped away in the kitchen, I'd check my newsfeed and Twitter and catch up on Kate news before dashing into the rest of the busy day. Now it is summer break, I have a little more time to sip my coffee and catch up about Kate here with you! This morning I am reading a really interesting piece in The Daily Mail about Kate's relationship with Beatrice and Eugenie. It made a lot of good points with which I agree, but a few others that I disagree with a little and I thought we'd chat about it here. What do the York sisters think of Kate?



I suspect the answer is a mixed one. They haven't given an interview, but we can make certain basic assumptions based upon human nature. On the one hand, it must be very hard to find themselves ceding rank to an in-law. Just place yourself in that position. They were born princesses, raised toddling through the hallways of Buckingham Palace and Balmoral, calling the Queen of England "granny." Yet, thanks to the hierarchy of the royal family, from the moment they were born, their royal star has been setting. The older William and Harry have gotten, the more firmly the Waleses have taken their places as the new "stars of the show" and the gap between their roles and their cousins' roles has become painfully apparent. To make matters worse, Prince Andrew seems to have exacerbated the situation by continuing to try to carve out official duties for his daughters, in direct contradiction to the Prince of Wales's theory that the monarchy should be more streamlined as it moves into the future. 




It is a tough place to find yourself as a young woman in the public eye, and isn't hard to imagine that there could be a bit of some latent jealousy where Kate is concerned. Model perfect figure, seemingly flawless flare for fashion--a commoner who waltzed into royalty and will now be first lady of the land. 

From the moment Kate joined the royal family the public has been musing on how they all get on. Shortly after the Royal Wedding, there was a much publicized story that the Queen had revised internal polices regulating who curtsied to whom, a topic that Tess covers over at Kate's Clothes this week. Of course, the potential problems would have started long before the royal wedding, as the DM piece points out. These women have known each other for years, when Kate was just the royal girlfriend on sometimes shifting sand, and Beatrice and Eugenie were safely royal and watching their cousin's girlfriend inch closer to "the finish line." The obvious tensions that this scenario could foment are ripe for speculation, although some stories seem a bit out there. The Mail recounts Beatrice challenging Prince William on her position in the BRF:
Beatrice, who by all accounts is dedicated to her grandmother, is said to have been particularly upset at being sidelined — so much so that before the royal wedding, according to one source, she ‘went to confront, in a charming fashion, William about her role [within the Royal Family].
‘This was when he was living at St James’s Palace. He kept her waiting for ages, then said it wasn’t his decision what she was included in — all very friendly, but it didn’t achieve anything.’
Although I am sure she was frustrated, I find it a little odd to imagine Beatrice driving over to have it out with William, rather than complaining to her father or even more effectively, addressing her concerns and ambitions directly to her grandmother the Queen. 

Stories that the Yorks didn't get on well with the Middleton girls are easier to credit, but it is still hard to verify second hand information based upon the word of anonymous society connections. Several incidents recounted:
Apparently, there was an incident in 2008 at a London fashion show for Issa, a favourite brand of the Royals and the Middletons. Organisers asked an already seated Beatrice and Eugenie to shuffle up in the front row to make room for Pippa Middleton. It is said they refused. Depending on who you talk to, this was a case of the Princesses being regal and unfriendly or Pippa being unnecessarily pushy because she didn’t want to lose face by suffering the social death that is being made to sit in the second row.
I vaguely remember hearing about this at the time, although that doesn't necessarily make it true. As with all such incidents, you can be sure there are two sides to the story. Another supposed blow up between Kate and Beatrice occurred at the Roller Disco party:
There was more trouble in 2008, when Kate organised a charity roller disco (at which she memorably fell on her back on the dancefloor, clad in sequins and hotpants).
It is said that, somehow, Beatrice wasn’t initially invited to the bash. Then, when an invitation was apparently extended to her — but not by Kate, according to sources — the Princess wasn’t made aware of the Eighties dress code and arrived in an ordinary dress, while everyone else was in neon outfits.
Beatrice, it seems, blamed Kate. Some say there were tears.
This seems the most dramatic of all and the scenario strikes me as almost as implausible as Beatrice storming to William to settle the family pecking order. I can't fathom that Beatrice was invited to a charity Roller-Disco and did not know it was a costume event. Further, although she chose a more understated ensemble than the sequined future-Duchess-of-Cambridge did, I am pretty sure that what she wore was actually a costume. 

Those days are long past and it would be inaccurate to talk about the slights and injuries of the past as if they just happened, because time hopefully brings growth and maturity and erases some of the pettiness of dawning adulthood.  More than whatever tensions arose between the women during the nightclub days of yore, the more fundamental rift is probably due to William. The most telling and relevant indication of the private state of affairs was provided by the Royal Wedding. Leaving Beatrice's long-time boyfriend Dave Clark off the list was a very interesting omission. It suggests at best that the two cousins are not close and at the worst that there is actual bad feeling between William and Dave Clark, which would certainly color his relationship with Beatrice.



William has never been particularly close to either Beatrice or Eugenie. They are younger than he and even before he abandoned the London party scene the girls still frequent, they were not pictured together often. There is a sharp contrast in personality that likely has even further distanced him from Beatrice, who shares a passion for the jet-setting lifestyle with Dave Clark. William prefers privacy and has always gravitated toward his cousin Zara, a down-to-earth royal who shares William's penchant for country living and a normal existence. Given their parity in age, interest, and stage in life (parents with children) it isn't surprising that Zara and William have remained close and that Kate has warm friendship with her cousin-in-law.


Harry and Eugenie are close and often holiday together. It is Harry who generally socializes with the two Yorks at family events, and of course we all know how Eugenie's good friend Cressida ended up dating Harry for several years. Interestingly, Harry is also very close to Kate, the two seem to have an absolute riot with one another, and I think Harry probably helps to bridge the gap and smooth over any hurt feelings or lingering grudges that the Yorks might still harbor.


Whatever the bad feeling may be, it seems the Yorks have chosen to make peace with the powerful rather than wage a war they cannot win. I don't think it is impossible to imagine that the girls like Kate, too, and probably look up to her in their own way, as many women around the world admire and emulate the Duchess of Cambridge. Kate is, after all, older than both girls by a number of years. From photos, a limited medium through which to make sweeping judgements, it seems that Eugenie in particular likes Kate. This would make sense since she is the younger of the two Yorks and probably doesn't feel the same competition that Beatrice might. 


The Duchess takes time to say hello to the girls at many family events and Eugenie's smile always seems bright and genuine. 



Eugenie is also friends with James Middleton's girlfriend Donna Air and has been pictured socializing with the pair. It has even been reported that the Princess was the link through which the two met.

DailyMail
I hope that Kate maintains a relationship with both girls, but particularly with Eugenie. Too often women who feel a rivalry with an intimidating figure like Kate alienate rather than allying themselves. It's too bad, because this is a relationship that could be beneficial to both.

Ultimately, clearly William doesn't like Dave Clark and possibly has trouble with Beatrice's glitzy lifestyle, too. It is inevitable that this would drive a wedge between the Duke and his Duchess and Beatrice. It does not, however, follow that the family relationship they share with Eugenie would necessarily be damaged and nothing suggests that Kate shuns the girls (why would she need to?) or that Eugenie doesn't look up to her elder and glamorous cousin-in-law. On the contrary, it looks as if she likes Kate very much.


A note about the newsletter. The first issue went out on Saturday morning. If you didn't receive it, check your spam. I know a number of you have been having trouble with that. If you haven't signed up, you can do so here.


Subscribe to From Berkshire to Buckingham's Newsletter
* indicates required

210 comments:

  1. Re the wedding invite: might protocol have been a deciding force? Kate didn't go to Charles and Camillas wedding when she was just a girlfriend

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was probably a liner. I actually heard that Dave was invited to the ceremony, but not to the evening reception and so attended neither. Kate was invited to Peter and Autumn's wedding. I think that given how long Dave has been dating Beatrice and given how William and Kate are more relaxed regarding protocol, he could have been included, and he wasn't.

      Delete
    2. Charles and Camilla's wedding was also very small and intimate, the opposite of William and Kate's. To leave a "significant other" off a list with a guest list of 1000 seems to signal something other than protocol. Pippa's boyfriend at the time was invited. If I recall, they had only dated a year and broke up mere months later.

      Delete
    3. I'm guessing that if Pippa's boyfriend was included it's because, as a member of the wedding party, she needed to have an escort.

      Delete
    4. When Charles and Diana got married, she had "X" number of invites to go around. I have a feeling it was a similar situation with Kate so it would have been her call with Pippa, and William's with his side of the family.

      Delete
    5. Robin I'm thinking if that was the case James could have been her escort :-)
      ~ A

      Delete
    6. What you say makes perfect sense, royalfan. That would also lend itself to the opinion that William does not care for Dave Clark. (Whom I assume is not related to the Dave Clark who was part of the Five. ;-) )

      Delete
    7. Ha! Robin. Dave Clark Five does date you, though. Reminds me of Dave Brubek.
      Just dated myself.

      Delete
    8. Hahahaha! We're not old - we're mature. I was just a little one during the DC5 years but I have a sister 12 years older than me. My musical tastes are all over the board! I also know who Dave Brubek is but was never a jazz fan. He's a good example for me to use when I teach about different musical eras though! Unless a Coltrane fan gets ahold of me and then he gets pride of place on the classroom playlist.

      Delete
    9. If I may add my humble opinion, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Harry's ex-girlfriend, don't remember her name, was also invited to the wedding. It makes the un-invitation even more "odd".

      Delete
    10. I believe Chelsy (Harry's ex) was at the wedding but no idea if she was at the reception after. She and Harry were dating at the same time as William and Kate and spent a lot of time together. I'm sure W&K considered her a personal friend of theirs.

      Delete
    11. Chelsy was Harry's girlfriend and the two couples spent time together. I am not aware of Beatrice and her boyfriend being in the same position. As Jean has already stated, the BRF is not exactly known for inviting boyfriends or girlfriends to weddings (on this level). And I will state, again, that Diana was given a certain number of invitations, but did not have say over every invitation that went out. As the brother of the groom, I would expect Harry's invitation to include a girlfriend. It's also possible that Chelsy was on Kate's list, given how close the trio is. Another possible angle to consider...what if the Queen is not tickled pink with Dave? We will never know for sure, but I do think it's safe to say that his omission was part BRF tradition and part normal family considerations/decisions.

      Delete
  2. There may also be some underlying factors besides William not caring for Beatrice's boyfriend. Charles and Andrew aren't particularly close and, as we have all been witness to, Andrew has shown some glaringly bad behavior. Not that William and Harry didn't make some poor choices (particularly Harry) in their younger days but Andrew can't seem to stop. When he was UK Trade Envoy people described him as cocky and rude. He makes friends with some highly questionable people and had to step down from his position not long after W&K's wedding. The behavior an attitude of the parents rubs off on their kids. Let's not forget Fergie. She and Diana weren't even speaking to each other at the time of Diana's death as I'm sure William was especially aware. Since then she has been embroiled in one scandal after another including "selling" access to Prince Andrew to the highest bidder . The girls will naturally side with their parents opinions on these things, but William & Kate must keep themselves as far away from scandal as they can.

    Aside from the parental aspect, it seems Eugenie's personality may be more open and friendly than Beatrice and could be why we see some nice photos of interactions with her and Kate. When they were at the Royal Windsor Horse Show we saw Eugenie interacting with others and watching what was going on. Beatrice, on the other hand, couldn't keep her nose out of her phone. If there is a problem with jealousy over the York girls diminishing roles and hierarchy within the family it's up to them to figure it out. This is the world into which they were born and they should know the protocol. If they can't accept it I place a good share of the blame on their parents. As Sophie said about her children needing to grow up as normally as they can because "they’re going to have to go out and get a job and earn a living later on in life."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said RobinfromCA!

      I have read various articles that indicate that Dave Clark likes to 'toss around the royal connection' and that William cannot abide by that behavior. We all know he is fanatical about trust and Clark didn't get the memo or rather doesn't care. Given that Andrew and Fergie are not exactly people who find trust and respect to be needed character traits I assume neither does Beatrice. She is the one that I am just cold about. She is more like her Mother who wants all the perks. Believes she is owed the perks and doesn't have to do anything. Of course I think Andrew lives this way also. Eugenie on the other hand seems to have some purpose in her life. She works. She doesn't seem to flit around the world every 8 weeks. She is close ton Harry and I think she does have a relationship with Kate. She seems to not feel so entitled at least to me. It is a shame that their parents have seemingly put them in a situation that makes being in the Firm albeit on the fringe as the years tick off incapable of finding a path. Hopefully they will find a way. I for one cannot stand Andrew. He is a brooding spoiled man who must be a total bore to be around for long. I haven't seen a real smile in his face in years.

      I rambled again. LOL

      Delete
    2. I'm with you, Diane. I don't care for Andrew at all. When he and Fergie got married I liked them both quite well and then the problems started. I read her autobiography and all it did was make her sound like a whiner. The questionable things she did there was no excuse for because she grew up around the Windsors and knew what she was marrying into. Andrew was also supportive of her in a way Charles never was to Diana. I think she let the fame and money (although, apparently, not enough money) go to her head. After their divorce he went back to his wild single days and is now just a pathetic, middle-aged man with no respect for himself or his family but all the expectation of entitlements.

      Delete
    3. Robin, I read your comment after I posted my own thoughts here and I am smiling at the similar points we made! :)

      Delete
    4. Yes ladies, we are of like minds! Some additional thoughts:
      Andrew is the only sibling of Charles who does not undertake frequent royal engagements, despite the often published opinion that he is "the Queen's favorite." The above comments already elucidate the reasons for this.
      Meanwhile, the Wessexes (Prince Edward and Sophie) and Princess Anne who still work full-time for the monarchy have publicly stated their children will make their own way in life. And the Gloucesters, Kents and Princess Alexandra (QEII's cousins), who have devoted their lives to royal service, are now in their seventies.
      Charles' announced plans for a slimmed-down monarchy could be in part affected by a desire to only allow family members who have been proven to be wise, honorable and hard working to represent him. That description of course disqualifies Andrew, and I wouldn't blame Charles for expecting Andrew and Sarah's daughters to prove themselves over an extended period in the real world. Right now the best gift A&S could give their daughters is for the two of them to maintain the lowest of public profiles, since the majority of their behavior does not augur well for Beatrice and Eugenie.
      Shifting to a happier tone, Eugenie reportedly had the highest scores of any royal in college degrees (please forgive me for my lack of more accurate description of British academic honors). And recently in the media there have been articles about the noble ancestors of her boyfriend Jack Brooksbank, as well as pictures of them together with other members of the royal family at a flower show. We know the BRF seldom allow photo ops to occur randomly. Perhaps a message of acceptance is being sent.
      Imagining a decade or more in the future, if the York sisters make good life choices and can distance themselves somewhat from their parents' less than respectable reputations, it would be good to see them carrying out royal duties, if that's what they want.

      Delete
    5. I think part of the reason we have the rigid code of duty and behavior seen in
      the Windsors follows from George V's reaction to the excesses of his father, Edward
      VII.(which could have been a reaction to his mother, Queen Victoria.) Oversimplification, but perhaps Eugenie and Beatrice are following a similar pattern,as Andrew and his siblings may have done.
      As Charles seems to represent both his mother's public persona and his Edwardian
      ancestor privately, it must be a confusing pattern to follow for his children.
      What William and Catherine seem to be doing is following a path between rigid adherence to duty and the excesses of privilege, resulting in realistic expectations for their children. Given the milieu
      that shadows their lives, it is a challenging path. The of-shoot could prove to be revitalizing the royal
      family and the monarchy .Break the cycle of extremes.

      Sarah-well, a person can do 100 things right and yet be known for the wrong done.
      As someone pointed out-she grew up on the edge of privilege. So near and yet so far.
      So did Camilla.
      I think it is lovely that Sarah and Andrew try to maintain a family unit. Personally, I would prefer a duplex arrangement; but their home is roomy, I imagine. At any rate,
      from the image provided by the press and from interviews I've seen with Sarah,
      she seems to be a very pragmatic sort of person.

      Delete
    6. True 11:21 but, as much as I don't like Camilla, she has never been photographed "frolicking" with her lovers, sold her story to the press, or been caught on tape selling access to the royal family to the highest bidder. So, for whatever Sarah has done right, she has made several really, really stupid decisions for the whole world to see. This isn't a Hollywood family where you're celebrated for your indiscretions, this is the British Royal Family who value their private lives. Everyone who is photographed regularly has bad moments (Harry had a few of his own scandals) but one expects them to move past that and be grown ups. Sadly, Andrew and Sarah can't seem to accomplish this.

      Delete
    7. Camilla frolicking? Now there's a thought. There were certain taped phone conversations that hinted at frolicking;
      however, I think we only heard Charles's end. Was he still married to Diana then? I forget.
      Leaking stories to the press? Yes, if you believe some quasi-credible sources from
      newspapers.I think the operant word here is "caught." The heir to the throne had
      her back. Sarah had to fight her own battles.
      In the end: excessive privilege and self-promotion versus self-denial and inability to connect with the public on a personal level.A middle path is needed.

      Delete
    8. Robin, me thinks Anon 1 @6:56 has given us some serious food for thought here.

      And yes, Anon, C&D were still married. Ditto for Camilla.

      Delete
    9. True, Anon 1, there were some highly indiscreet phone conversations taped during C&D's marriage, and I'm not saying it wasn't scummy of them, but they were illegally taped in a situation where they had an expectation of privacy. (Now I'm sounding all legal.) But you have introduced a mental picture of Camilla frolicking and now I have to go poke out my mind's eye! (Full body shudder.....)

      Delete
    10. I think the person who met Sarah to discuss access to Andrew was an undercover reporter and I'm not aware of any court sanction to those recordings either.
      When I think of Camilla, I try to imagine her at the funeral of her beloved brother.
      I think she was at her lovliest then with a relaxed, vulnerable expression-although
      it was one of grief. Her outfit suited her better than all the spangles and diamonds
      ever will. Actually, that photo was an invasion of her privacy during a horrific
      time in her life.
      Otherwise, yes, a lot of eye-poking involved.Sorry.

      Delete
    11. royalfan :8:10- thanks. I wasn't sure. What a mess.
      I will say, the royals often emerge from ghastly situations and indeed keep calm
      and carry on. I would be permanently ensconced under the covers in my bed, emerging
      only for hefty doses of ice cream.
      Some royals have not come out without visible wounds and are never the same again.

      Delete
    12. Lots of ice cream...and cupcakes, I always need cupcakes!

      Delete
  3. Im really surprised by this article, especially as the main source of it appears to bt the Daily Mail.

    I really enjoy this blog which does not Normally indulge in gossip, but this has a definite tabloid feel about it.

    I know that this opinion differs from yours and the responders so far but I thought it worth while putting forward a different view.

    Grabs tin hat, and leaps into bunker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, agree or disagree I appreciated the charm with which you expressed your opinion. You can emerge from the bunker! ;) I guess the best serious response I can give is that before school I used to write quiet a few opinion pieces and this is sort of in line with that. I appreciate that you consider this blog not to be gossipy, although I think i do a lot of that here. Really, what I wanted to say here was that the idea--put forward by the Mail--that there is some feud between Kate and the Yorks is not true and not fair. I don't think Beatrice and Wills get on, but I think Eugenie (and I like her) likes Kate and I don't think Kate has anything against them. So, really that was what I was trying to express, perhaps imperfectly.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for that. I always think that disagreeing isn't about being rude or aggressive. Good to discuss.
      We disagree and that's ok but just want to add that the entire scenario is based on speculation by a well known disreputable paper that is anti Yorks and not that keen on Catherine either. No one knows any facts. So that without corroboration from a reliable source (you study law)this doesn't hold water.

      Anyway - next week you'll be very busy getting back to Catherine and her engagements. Look forward to yr views on what takes place. And on a fashion note, I'm hoping for a lace-free zone!

      Delete
    3. I agree on good conversation! :) I would only ask if you agree that sources aside, we can make certain deductions based upon human nature alone?

      Delete
    4. Generalisations only - neither of us know the people concerned. Deductions should only be determined based on facts that have more than one source.
      The problem with generalisations is that they tend to promote our own prejudices.
      I've run out of tin hats

      Delete
  4. Interesting that a Kate fan blog would contribute to the gossip with speculations based on Katie Nicholl articles and photos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, well, (a) see above, and (b) this was not based upon any Katie Nicholl article. Although, I kind of like Katie Nicholl! :)

      Delete
    2. The roller disco and fashion show story is from Katie Nicholl. Even better she contradicts her own stories in the articles. First she claimed she found Bea crying in the bathroom at the roller disco then in the Pippa snub article she claims Bea was upset with Kate because she didn't receive an invitation to the disco party.

      Also the implication that Beatrice might be jealous because Kate is an "intimidating" paragon of glamour is kind of gross. Reinforces the "catty and jealous" female stereotype.

      Delete
    3. Well, you have followed Katie Nicholl more closely than I. I drew only from the Mail article I mentioned (not a Nicholl story) and my own recollections from the time. If she reported on that, great. I don't know if it really matters where it originated, my analysis of the nature is solid.
      As to your second point about "stereotypes" it is a stereotype because it is true. I don't know a women who wouldn't honestly admit it.

      Delete
    4. You are so right, Jane. Stereotypes exist for a reason. That's not to say that everyone fits into them but that enough people do to create the opinion.

      Delete
    5. 7:08, I think the "catty and jealous" part is determined by how you RESPOND to a situation, while FEELING a certain way (as Jane suggests) is simply human nature.

      Delete
    6. I recently heard someone say, half jokingly half seriously, that from a young age women are taught to use psychological warfare against one another. While that is more aggressive than "catty" I think it is something we frequently encounter and sadly has some truth. Given who their mum is and her obvious insecurities and unhappiness I would deduce they don't have a great role model in this arena.
      ~ A

      Delete
    7. So true, A. It starts very young. You see it on school playgrounds all the time. Boys get into an argument and then they shove each other (they used to punch each other but things are more strict about that now) and then it's over and they start playing again. Girls get into an argument and they say things to hurt feelings and try to get all of their friends to do the same. It's so much more mean!

      Delete
    8. Hmmm.... Don't any of the posters on this thread see the "catty and jealous" behavior they are exhibiting towards the Yorks? It is like Kate is queen B and Robin, royal fan, and Diane can't wait to wage war on her behalf.

      Delete
    9. I am never jealous Anon 9.16. Just clarifying that point. Please don't name call any of us here. Neither royalfan, Robin or myself have called anyone here catty or jealous. It does appear there is an active desire on some to engage us in a war of words. I refuse to play. I respect your opinions but I do draw a line when you or anyone makes comments about our opinions with the name calling. I can assure you that the 3 of us do not cower at the thought of Kate or need spittle wiped from our mouths. No one is falling all over themselves here about Kate. I don't care who it is if they misbehave and act inappropriate albeit Kate William or the York's we do say so.

      None of us are waging war. It appears a team of Anonymous folks are on the attack here. Not biting.

      Oh and I love cats. I have two. But I have never attempted to be a cat. So catty? No.

      Delete
    10. Diane, I personally make it a goal not to respond to any comment that begins with "hmmm..."

      Delete
    11. Hahaaaa you Crack me up Anon 1.

      Geesh so much wisdomore from you and again you are probably correct in that assessment. Too funny:)

      Delete
    12. Diane, we're on the same page in the cat department! I have two also. Had large dogs as far back as I can remember, but I'm having a ball with them! LOVE the cattitudes. :))

      Delete
  5. Hi,interesting aspect of Kate's royal relationships to cover. I always thought the roller disco story was suspect because Holly Branson also organised the event and as a great pal of Beatrice why wouldn't she have extended an invitation in good time with the theme and dress code. I wonder how the Beatrice crying at the disco story got started. Someone in the press or on Tumblr mischief making perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have also heard Holly and Kate haven't been seen together in ages, and didn't she NOT attend the Royal Weddinh? Speculation I heard was she took the York girls sides.
      ~ A

      Delete
  6. Thank you for this, Jane. These articles are the reason I subscribed to this blog; I really enjoy when you have time to do a longer analysis piece.

    A couple of things:
    - re the fashion show: having worked as an event manager, this sounds more like a panicked event manager suddenly realising she hadn't left enough space for her VVIPs and shuffling the seating, rather than Pippa or Bea and Eug pulling rank, necessarily.
    - I think it's clear that Bea and Eugenie are quite different characters. Bea seems to have inherited her father's sense of entitlement and her mother's love of the good life. Eugenie seems happy to strike out of her own, working a job and setting up a life for herself in New York and being generally more relaxed and low key

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the Duke of York made a mistake giving the girls the title Princess. Lady Louise will have a much easier time of it - no scraping & bowing required. And Peter and Zara Phillips are much respected & admired without a title. The problem really is Andrew & Sarah & their lifestyle that has rubbed off on The girls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. The titles set them up for expectations they cannot meet given the example their parents have set over the years. Beyond ironic if you think about it.

      Delete
    2. What's really unfortunate and even sadder is that their 'friends' who seem to support their lifestyle ie: bring them along for vacations etc are really only wanting the 'royal' connection . They can say we had Princess Beatrice with us over the summer ...that lends itself to some prestige. Not as it did 100 years ago it even 30 years ago but still. I think they are not real friendships but more like business transactions. Let me vacation on your yacht and you can take pictures of me. Wow.. now where did they learn how to do that? Oh that's right good old Mom and Dad. It's all a bad comedy. I do hope they snap to it one day or they will lead the miserable struggling life's of their parents. It's a shame.

      Delete
    3. Diane, I believe Sarah, too, has taken full advantage of her daughters' royal titles.

      Delete
    4. Oh most definitely royalfan. No one can argue she has not. I think she feels entitled to their titles LOL

      Delete
    5. Lol. Good way of putting it, Diane!

      Delete
  8. Very interesting to hear your take on this. I read the Mail article too and wondered how true any of it was. I would love to hear your comments on Camilla and Kate. I recently read an article that there's bad blood between them and its based on a book "Game of Crowns." I realize this is all second hand, but I'd love to know what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it is true that Beatrice spoke to William about her role going forward. She was probably looking for support and wanted his help, which he certainly could have given. But, I don't think she made it overly tense or contentious. The BRF is really like a family business with birthrights picking the role of CEO. Plus, families talk about issues. How they will handle the lesser roles of the family members going forward is certainly a family issue. William can't just try to wash his hands of it and pretend that it is not something that has anything to do with him.

    Also, I thought it was very funny and very telling when Harry joked that George has made him boring in the eyes of the public in his US interview for the games. I was a little taken aback. Although he was joking, the truth is that he really must look at news coverage in those terms, who is popular and who isn't, what is the pecking order of popularity.
    It struck me as sad in a way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think - IF this happened - that William has just "washed his hands of it" or is ignoring it. He knows very well that this is his grandmother's choice now and his father's choice next. He can't go about making promises on their behalf. I don't think there can be any basis in truth to this story because Beatrice would know very well that this is a choice William will not make for a very long time. It is, after all, Charles's statement that he wants "slimmed down monarchy" that is creating all the controversy. If Beatrice did go and confront William I think he might see it as an end around and not appreciate it very much.

      Delete
    2. Decisions are all about power and support. William holds the power in the BRF, he simply does. Who he supports and what ideas he backs matter. He is not a child, he is a grown man. And he can have opinions and support ideas he likes. He must not want to support Beatrice in this. But he certainly can't pretend that it wouldn't matter, his support would mean a lot.

      Of course Beatrice would talk to others about it, that's human nature, rally support for your position. That's not an end runaround. She has every right to seak with whomever she likes. Period.

      Charles' want of a slimmed down monarchy is simply to kick others off stage. He is actually increasing the monies that the BRF will be receiving in years to come BUT cutting the number of prime family spots down. This isn't about cost cutting, this is about power hording.

      I actually believe that Beatrice and her sister are too far removed from the future monarchy and shouldn't have a large role going forward. But I think they have every right to discuss their concerns with whoever they want to discuss them with, including Charles.

      I also think that giving them some lesser, but still meaningful, duties would be the appropriate and honorable way to handle this situation.

      Delete
    3. Hard to have a role when you cannot even manage a real job because you are more interested in flying all over the world every few months. How do you provide a royal role and not be afraid that they will be a 'no show' ? I can understand why their might be some angst on the part of Charles and William.


      As to the George comment and Harry. In highly doubt that Harry meant that remark to be anything but funny. I don't think for one minute that Harry is worried about his popularity or his place within the family. He will always be in the 'pack'.

      Delete
    4. The anti-monarchy groups complain all the time that the tax payer is being gouged by the royals. One of the things Charles did is take away the 24/7 royal protection officers the York girls and other peripheral royals had. They only have them now if they are officially representing the Queen. It's costs the taxpayers far less that way as the cost of the 24/7 protection was £250,000 per person, per year. Just taking the York girls into account it is saving the taxpayers half a million pounds per year! That's a tidy sum of money and there is no reason for them to have that protection while they are off vacationing around the world with their jet setting friends.

      Delete
    5. Diane-
      Beatrice and Eugenie (sp?) do have some royal duties now and they have NEVER been accused of being a "no show".

      Delete
    6. Anon 10.31 please re-read my comment. I NEVER SAID the were a no show.

      I said it's hard to give them a role because they may MAY not show given the propensity for having fun over work.

      And yes I know they show up with Granny now and then. But they do not go out on their own representing the Queen. They go out for charity work on other things but not as a representative of the Queen.

      Delete
    7. Anon 1, your ride the bus remark is worthy of a drumroll! :) Absolutely agree.

      Robin, rules can be bent, changed, or disregarded. Facts and memories, on the other hand, are a very different story and I believe *this* factor will play a greater role than Charles anticipates. Camilla is no dumb blonde and I suspect that she has a better understanding of this...

      Delete
    8. Doesn't Parliament trump the Queen? Can't they intervene, as has happened before
      with Charles I and the no legitimate heirs situations? I'm speaking in principle, not in fact. Not suggesting resorting to violence.

      Delete
  10. I'd always assumed the (perceived) frostiness came from the whole Fergie thing; none of the Windsors like her penchant for attention. The girls can't help that their mother sometimes acts foolishly. I would bet that connection makes William wary, and the age differences and lifestyle preferences make a lot of sense too.
    I know all this is idle stuff, but it interests me in the sense of how Kate navigates the Firm. And Kate could be, I think, an intimidating presence. She's not only beautiful but by all accounts sporty and smart. *And nice.* She's certainly human and flawed, but we rarely see those moments. And, in any family, attention to a new member might be difficult. Both York girls seemed very close to the Queen & Prince Philip in the *Queen @ 90* documentary; I think their allegiance to them - and willingness to play with hats - are endearing at the end of it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Willingness to play with hats... How sweetly put. LOL:). I know some think that Beatrice was trying to seek attention at the wedding by wearing that hat, but I really don't. It was the wedding of the decade and EVERYONE was decked out in their best.

      Delete
  11. Well, Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn't be human if they didn't have some mixed feelings where Kate is concerned. To a degree, they are experiencing the Kate effect as some members of the BRF experienced it with Diana. A young lady marries into the Firm and surpasses them in popularity. How is this possible?! (Although I tend to think that Beatrice has more of an issue with it; Eugenie doesn't appear to be as competitive and she seems to genuinely like Kate.)

    The York ladies were born with silver spoons in their mouths and Andrew and Sarah raised them to be very aware of their status. Unfortunately, thanks to their own antics over the years, A&S have chipped away at the "value" of this status. In so many ways, the York's have played into Charles' hands as he seeks to streamline the monarchy. The York's must resent this more than we will ever know, and I suspect there may be an additional factor they have a problem with (one that is never mentioned). Charles' personal life has not been scandal free, yet he managed to stay focused on and achieve exactly what he wants (so far). Ironic, to a degree.

    As far as William is concerned, I believe he is well aware that Sarah was not a loyal friend to Diana. And Sarah's limelight seeking ways (and the way she has raised B&E) are the polar opposite of William's personality and vision. Say what you will about William being stubborn and hating the press, but there is no comparison to the scandals that continue to surround the York's.

    In a way, I feel sorry for B&E. Their parents have set them up to have expectations that they themselves (A&S) have undermined every step of the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles only "achieved" what he wanted because Diana died. That marriage never could have happened without her death. Rarely do people ever get what they really deserve. Camilla and Charles certainly didn't.

      Delete
    2. 10:50, on one level they did achieve it, but I do understand your point and am not disagreeing with you. Many things would be very different if Diana was alive.

      Delete
    3. You're right, royalfan. As usual we are of a like mind!

      Wouldn't it be interesting to see how this all played out if Diana were still alive. I wonder if Charles would have become another Edward VIII.

      Delete
    4. A 3rd like mine here ladies :)

      Part of me thinks Charles has waited so long that he would never let anything stop him from being King.

      But, part of me thinks that Charles has waited so long to be King that at his age I am not sure he would give up his Camilla and perhaps might pull a Edward VIII.

      Delete
    5. Now he doesn't have to give up Camilla but would he have done so if Diana were still around? Now there's an unanswerable question! He might have done so since the Queen has lived long enough for William to be a grown man with a wife and family and Charles's beloved Granny wouldn't be around to see it. Hmm...interesting to ponder.

      Delete
    6. I thought the monarch wasn't allowed to marry a divorced person whose spouse was still living? The whole reason behind Edward VIII's abdication.The reason why Princess Margaret couldn't marry Cpt. Townsend and keep her place in the succession.
      If I were Camilla's ex, I'd ride the bus.

      Delete
    7. They aren't. That's why Charles and Camilla didn't marry until a discreet amount of time after Diana's death took place. That's what makes the question so interesting to ponder. If Diana were alive would Charles give up his place in favor of William so he could marry Camilla? One part of me thinks he would have taken the throne and kept her as a mistress. The other part of me thinks he might have just retreated quietly to Highgrove and abdicated. We'll never know but the words Queen Camilla sure stick in my throat.

      Delete
    8. My point was-when Charles becomes king, his wife's former husband will still be living, I assume. When Edward VIII became king, his intended wife's former husband(s)
      were still alive, which meant he had to give up WWS or the throne. Since Charles already has a wife with a living former spouse, he would have to give up his
      right to the throne. Unless the rules have changed since 1937-and they may have.
      I really don't know. Actually, since the 1950's, when Princess Margaret apparently chose her place in the succession over her divorced boyfriend. The rules must have changed. since I can't imagine Charles dumping Camilla or giving up the long-awaited
      prize.

      Delete
    9. I think the rules have been changed - or overlooked - for Charles. As long as Camilla doesn't rule (which, of course, she can't) Charles will take the throne. If Diana were still alive he couldn't assume the role of Defender of the Faith according to the dictates of the Church of England. But now they look at him more as a widower. Of course, that's a double standard because he and Diana were already divorced at the time of her death.

      Delete
  12. This may be an "out there" comment, but I have never seen an article or comment speculating about Beatrice and Dave getting married (given how long they've dated) and I find it rather odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. And I think B & E have major issuing stemming from Andy. He was very verbally and mentally abusive to Fergie. She has even admitted it. That type of behavior from a husband is rarely only directed at one person and I bet he spoke to the girls like that too. (Which I think attributed to their weight issues, among other things. In interviews they sound full of self-loathing. Daddy might have given them a lot of money but he took in other ways more than he gave. B & E have major issues and I blame Andrew.)

      Delete
    2. 10:47, I'm interested in your sources (I mean that sincerely) because I have only ever heard Sarah praise Andrew, AND she continues to live under the same roof.

      Delete
    3. 10.47 I too am interested in your sources. As Roy fan stated I too have never heard Sarah say anything against Andrew. I realize that abused women (and men) hide their feelings and typically will not speak about the abuse. Mainly out of fear or shame. After all these years I doubt Sarah has any fear or shame even though she lives or lived with him so long.

      I think Andrew is just a jerk anyway. I think he is verbally abusive to most people. He is entitled. He is a snob to the nth degree. I don't feel he has any character. A man that has a best friend who is a pedophile and known to be a arsehole gathers like minded friends. Not saying Andrew is a pedophile but he is a royal ass. Sorry if that is wrong to say. But it's true. Charles isn't perfect but he is no Andrew. Those girls silver spoon is not 925. It's tin.

      Delete
    4. I would like to know those sources as well. Sarah has always been a staunch supporter of Andrew and after divorcing him she has continued to share a house with him for decades. She has absolutely no scruples so I doubt she would put up with anything from him. As for Andrew, his personality and lack of discretion is well documented. Sadly, the Yorks screw up all the time and they do it in front of cameras. No, I fault Charles for a lot of things but not for distancing the Yorks from representing the monarchy.

      Diane, you made me laugh!

      Delete
    5. Years ago, after the divorce when Fergie had first lost a lot of weight, she openly talked about how Andrew would call her names all the the time, cow, fat pig, worthless... Telling her she deserved the mean comments in the papers about her looks because she was, after all, fat.

      She talks well about him now because he supports her. People stay in verbally/mentally abusive relationships all the time. Look around you, I'm sure you know someone close who is in an abusive relationship now. Especially when there is a lot of money at stake. (Also, even though they "live together", they have separate areas of the house and Andrew travels all the time.)

      I think Andrew treats everyone in his family like this, including his daughters.

      Delete
  13. I have to admit that, although this entry did have a 'gossip' feel to it, I rather enjoyed reading your take on Beatrice. I have always perceived her as a too-high-and-mighty royal, with obvious influence from her parents.

    I liken her to one of the evil step-sisters from Cinderella! LOL Wearing that monstrous embarassment of a 'hat' at the Cambridges' wedding cemented that for me!
    She exudes jealousy and pompousness.

    While, on the other hand, her sister seems to get a bad reputation just being associated with her sister sometimes. I perceive Eugenie to be genuine and lovely, while having to constantly proove that she seems nothing like her parents or sister.

    Sorry Beatrice, but if any of these misgivings about you are at all true, you'd best realise that 'blood princess' or not, you don't have the public appeal that Kate will have forever-more.

    Go Team Kate! ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, these comments seem very mean spirited. Over a person you don't even know.

      Delete
    2. None of us know them and yet we all feel free to comment with our perceptions of them. Just my two cents worth nothing, as with everyone else's.

      Delete
  14. Alejandra RamírezJune 5, 2016 at 10:17 PM

    Mega Excellent pots!
    As usual you give your insight and explain the facts in a neutral way!
    Really nice job! :D
    I have never thought of the situation in this way :D

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's always hard playing second fiddle- just ask Prince Phillip or Prince Charles who had more popular and more photogenic spouses. Being a junior member in a family business means you have to work twice as hard to get noticed and you have to understand the pecking order. I think the York girls do a decent job working the tight rope- supporting the Firm and trying to establish a life outside of it. I think they watch Kate from afar- how does she negotiate the protocols of court life while carving her own niche. As everyone says in any documentary, you have to figure it out for yourself. Eugenie and Kate benefit from similar interests- they both majored in Art History. Even Harry has an artistic bent inherited from his dad. As Kate and William's family grows and matures, interest will fade in the Yorks. We all have to navigate adulthood with its ups and downs, I don't envy anyone having to do it on a world wide stage. I wish Eugenie and Beatrice happy and productive lives- and as an added bonus, we'll see them supporting the Waleses in the coming years...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ugh, the Daily Mail is the ultimate petty young girl, full of snark and making up bullshit. I just cannot with that site.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jane... Wth. Saying Will doesn't like Dave because he didn't invite him?? Sadly you're acting like the DailyMail or Star magazine, gossipy, using unfounded arguments, and speculative. Disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. after they have dated for 10 years, I think Jane's remark is a safe assumption.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon 11:25. I am sorry you are displeased. I think the fastest response is to simply say that I didn't make unfounded assumptions. The conclusions I drew were based upon verifiable observation (the Yorks aren't close to the Cambridges), upon verifiable facts (Dave Clark was not included in the Royal Wedding), and upon human nature, which is a legitimate first principle from which to draw probable conclusions.

      Delete
    3. Agreed Anon 10.20

      It's not gossip at this point it's a fact ......

      JACK

      ..... haha couldn't help myself

      Delete
    4. As in *Hit the road, Jack*? - Oh, I think we could do this all day!

      Delete
    5. Hahaaa giggling at us !!

      "And don't cha come 'round no more no more..." :)

      Delete
    6. You don't know Jack.

      Delete
    7. I know Jack anon1. He goes well with Miss Ginger Ale bahahaaa

      Cheers!

      Delete
    8. I don't doubt that one single bit Diane Brown.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 3.32 what are you trying to say? It reads like you are implying something rather mean spirited. We are having some fun. Playing with words.

      Please explain that comment.

      Delete
    10. Mmmmm.....
      (comment self-censored)

      Delete
    11. Now Anon 1 I would think since you think responding to a hmmm is perhaps not wise that your Mmmm is same? LOL

      I am not a sot people. I was playing with the words. If that was the intent of that comment 3.32 then that is very below the belt. I just know ppl here drink Jack with ginger ale. Geesh.

      That kind of smacks. 😢

      Delete
    12. I didn't think that at all, Diane! I don't drink at all but I always heard that Jack's best friend was Coke. ;-)

      Delete
    13. I didn't think you thought that RobinfromCA. My comment was for the Anon 3.32. Who has yet to reply which means to me that the person meant it to be "implied".

      Delete
    14. My Mmmmmmm was in response to the ice cream.
      My censored comment referred to our Jack theme. ha!

      Yes, Diane- the "h" is silent. Mmmmm is actually Hmmmmmmm...

      Delete
  18. Did Eugenie's boyfriend, I believe his name is Jack, not get invited to the royal wedding either? I feel like both boyfriends got snubbed but I can't find anything to confirm this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugenie had just started dating Jack prior to the wedding. It may have been too soon. But if so probably the same scenario for Jack that Dave had. Yes to wedding and no to after festivities.

      Delete
    2. "Meanwhile Princess Eugenie’s boyfriend Jack Brooksbank is free to be at the club the whole day, having had no invitation at all."

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368035/Royal-Wedding-Sloanes-drown-sorrows-snub-Not-Invited-party.html#ixzz4AoVzLSXT
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      Delete
    3. The article also admitted that Jack Brooksbank had not been dating Eugenie long enough to be invited. I believe it was stated at the time that the luncheon hosted by HM at BP after the wedding was for visiting dignitaries, family members, and people closely associated with William and Kate. I don't believe Beatrice's boyfriend fits into any of those categories.

      Delete
  19. hmm I don't see any problem with the yorks girls are seems good term with the duchess

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's said that Eugenie hasher job in NY because of William. He pulled in some favors so Eugenie can have her dream job.
    don't know if it's true but it's said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give me a break. William isn't going to lift a finger for them.

      Delete
  21. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Prihcess Eugenie's boyfriend was invited to the Royal Wedding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They started dating just before the wedding. I am guessing it was too new to merit an invite. If he did have one as a +1 I would assume it wold be the same as Dave Clarks. Yes to the wedding and no to the after party.

      Delete
  22. IMO Kate and Eugenie have a cordial relationship but nothing more, as it should be. Each of them has their circle of friends, but they seem to get along just fine when they are together.

    On the contrary, I think there is something wrong between Kate and Beatrice, which is fine too, since it's okay to dislike a person. Not everyone has to be friends. But yes, I've noticed many "fronzen" moments between them two over the years

    ReplyDelete
  23. To use a tabloid such as the Daily Mail for a source is a head scratcher for me. These gossip papers like nothing better than to fabricate feuds between various people -- almost always women -- by saying they have "inside sources from someone close." There's no credibility to any of it. But, of course, it sells newspapers. IMHO the royal family relationships are no one's business except theirs. Much prefer the focus on Kate's clothes choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure if you are commenting on the original post or on the ongoing discussion here in the comments, but to be very clear about the post, it isn't using the Daily Mail as a source. I acknowledged that it was reading an article in the Mail that got me thinking, I responded to several sections of the Mail that I thought were wrong, but ultimately I made my own conclusions based on separate and publicly verifiable information.

      Delete
    2. Jane you have said this repeatedly thought-out this thread. I notice it's only Anonymous posters making these comments. I suspect they have just found a post that they feel they can muddy the waters for you.

      Just shows me that some folks just don't read the entire blog before they start commenting.

      I for one see nothing gossipy in your blog. Keep on doing what you do!

      Delete
    3. Agreed, Diane.

      11:35, Jane stated at the beginning of the post that it was "reading" the DM article that gave her the idea to inspire something to chat about. Not to take as gospel truth in the matter. Do we or do we not agree with the DM? That is the question.

      Sheesh, it seems like some people are just waiting around to get offended by something! I blame this hideous election for it. Is anyone else wishing they could just go to sleep and wake up in December?

      Delete
    4. ME! It's exhausting RobinfromCA

      Delete
    5. Robin, I don't blame the elections. IMO, Jane has a reputation for running a tighter ship (and AMEN to that) and this appears to be a form of gotcha.

      Jane's post and thought process was clear and I wonder if the loudest protestors actually took the time to read it.

      Delete
    6. And they're all here right now because our Primary is tomorrow. Dumb, dumber, and dumbest - what choice! I think I'll vote for Ronald McDonald. He's a clown like all the rest but at least we might get free milkshakes!

      Delete
    7. Vote YES for milkshakes! 😀😁😂

      Delete
  24. Something else in the article that no one has brought up, the York camps contention that Kate never did much through the years long courtship with William, as far as work was concerned. Which is very true. Jigsaw work: less than 6 months. Party Pieces: part-time (if that) taking pictures for family firm and the was only in the last year or so before the engagement.

    Jane has repeatedly defended Kate on this. Explaining that life isn't all about work and if people have the money and time to enjoy their life, why is that so wrong?

    My point is.... I see a double standard re: the work issue for Kate vs. the York girls. Kate was fully and completely supported by her parents until almost the age of 30 and then the financial responsibility became her husband's. Although the York girls might appear in the papers vacaing more, Kate was with William on many a holiday, we just never saw it. Very expensive, very exotic holidays. They rest of the time her full-time "job" was girlfriend. Let's be honest here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we're being honest here then we cannot say that Kate was on many "very expensive and very exotic" holidays with William and "we just never saw it" and at the same time claim that she only "took some pictures" for her family's business. We have no idea what she did with her family's business and they were certainly not going to go to the press with the information. I can see why she didn't last at Jigsaw since her life as William's girlfriend included having no privacy from the press. The other huge difference is that the Middletons are private citizens and not members of the royal family who depend on some public funding like the York family. Now that some of their publicly funded lifestyle has been cut by Prince Charles, there is a lot of whining going on from Prince Andrew's camp.

      Delete
    2. Well said again RobinfromCA and that is exactly the difference between Kate and the York girls....private citizen non royal... not in the dole. Big difference ...honestly ;)

      Delete
    3. "We have no idea what she did with her family's business and they were certainly not going to go to the press with the information."

      Actually, we do. They proudly announced it and included a picture. Kate was the photographer for products. The announcement was covered by many papers too.

      And yes, William and Kate, during their courtship, went on many expensive and exotic vacations. Africa many times, Necker Island, Mystique, Seychelles, the list goes on. They just threaten everyone and their brother if they post any pictures. The York sisters can't do that.

      And I don't believe the York girls have ever received an income from their royal work. Aside from their guards, their Dad paid for everything.

      Of course, if you are going to talk about "publicly funded lifestyle", than William and Kate are certainly fair game in that discussion too. Or is it just throwing stones at the York sisters?

      Delete
    4. We can refer to Bea and Eug being "on the dole" but W & K, now married, aren't they "on the dole" too? Certainly more so than the Yorks ever were.

      It is so interesting that sharp comments like that are easily thrown at Bea and Eug, but swords come out if anyone ever questions W & K's work ethics.

      But of course, W must be sooo tired working 20 hours a MONTH and doing a few royal engagements. Pfft!

      Delete
    5. Just curious, anon 1:21. If the W&C vacations weren't publicised, how did you learn of them?

      Delete
    6. No one is throwing stones 6.36. The blog and the thread is about the relationship between the York girls and Kate. Of course we are going to be discussing it ALL.

      No one needs to throw a stone at them as they already live in a glass house that their parents built with no thoughts about how how behavior could cause the glass to crack all on its own. Houses will crack from the inside too.

      Publicly funded lifestyle is fair game now that Kate and William were married but the above cmoments were about BEFORE they were married when Kate was a private citizen. Comparing her private time on a vacation is not the same as the blood princesses constant vacations and failure to keep a job to offset some of those expenses. I am not without some sympathy for them. They cannot help that they have parents who feel entitled and in my opinion abuse the system to the max! The fact that Andrew has continued to let Fergie live off the money that is from the tax payers is not lost. The country pays for her still! I give more credit to Eugenie as she seems to want a career and a normal life. Beatrice on the other hand is a snob ala Andrew style I believe. I suspect the 'smack of reality' will be difficult when Charles ascends to the throne. I expect Andrew to battle him loudly and perhaps publicly since his Mother will be gone. Even now he is has no backbone to do the right thing by his family and certainly not his country. Andrew is all in for Andrew. JMHO

      Delete
    7. I think it's insulting, and quite revealing, to refer to Kate's fulltime job as being a girlfriend. Likewise for the reference to many expensive and exotic vacations. And the insistence that her input at Party Pieces was minimal is no different from some of the current claims that she does not do much behind the scenes.

      Kate met a prince, fell in love, and her family was in a position to offer their daughter the privacy and sanity her life would have lacked had she lived and worked in London during the years that she and William dated. She did have flexibility, but we have no idea what she did, or how much.

      Did they go on vacations? Yes, but it certainly didn't represent the majority of their courtship. And, as Robin and Diane pointed out, she was a private citizen.

      The York ladies, on the other hand, have royal titles (which equates to a degree of accountability) and the party/vacation scene appears to dominate their lives. And if you don't begrudge them their vaca's, how do you justify doing so when it comes to Kate (as Miss Middleton)?

      Delete
    8. "Publicly funded lifestyle is fair game now that Kate and William were married..."

      So untrue. If anyone ever called William and Kate "on the dole", the smack down on this blog would be huge. Heck, a taboo subject is "Does Kate work enough?"

      (Quote from blog "rules": Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?")

      It is a simple fact, the York sisters are held to different standards and different rules than Kate. She didn't work before marriage, she didn't work much after marriage, but before children either. You know, when she was on the "public dole".

      Delete
    9. Oh, anon 1, I have no insider info. (LOL Yes, this is Bea, defending myself from across the pond! Daddy's in the other room giving me pointers!)

      They were publicly discussed but, like I said, few pictures were ever shown under threat from William.

      It is easier to hate on the York sisters because their vacations are so publicized. Those images fuel the hate. William and Kate just keep things far from the camera lens.

      Delete
    10. Royalfan I am finding it interesting at the number of Anonymous posters that are here just itching for a war of words. I appreciate their defense of the York's but not quite sure why they feel they must be protected when no one has decided that we send them to the Tower and call in a swordsman from France?? I mean why so much angst Anon?

      Delete
    11. How do we know William threatened the media while they were dating? Was an official letter released by St. James's? That is the only way the royals officially deal with the press. What did he threaten them with? The only protection William had from the media was when he was at St. Andrews. After that all bets were off. His vacations were well documented including, but not limited to, the cruise he went on when the press said he and his buddies requested an all-female crew and pointed out that Kate was *not* with them. Not only that, the world wide paps could care less what William may or may not have said because he holds no sway over them. They don't care about Williams position or future position - they care about the money to be made from selling the photographs. We must also remember that he was full-time military at the time so even he wasn't taking all that many vacations.

      Delete
    12. Anon 1:21 I will concede that yes there were vacations we semi knew of. Hearing the fake names they booked flights under, etc.
      As for Kate being supported by her parents until almost 30, I think it was partly her parents and party William. Remember, she lived in Wales with William so I am assuming he contributed to a lot of her lifestyle by that point. I think he wanted her to be very available for them to live a quiet life together.
      As for Bea's vacations, many you can see on social media that her friends post. So yes, it is more in our face.

      Delete
    13. Diane 8:59- let it be a lesson for us all to resist reacting to an Anonymous barrage
      in the future. This has happened before here and elsewhere. I think I recognise
      the writing style from a poster on another blog. Things may have been too kind and
      gentle. Or maybe we were just being played to elicit a reaction and some of us came
      through with flying colors- I am sorry to say I am one of those.
      I appreciate Jane's efforts to keep us entertained and perhaps to encourage a
      calm, reasonable discussion on a topic of interest. I do think, thanks to the
      press and other forums, the subject has been infused with too much bias and
      speculation (on all sides) to promote a sensible discussion. The story is based on
      events primarily from 5-10+ years ago but still triggers predictable responses.

      Delete
    14. anon 1 I too see some familiar writing styles and forms of attacks from others from two other blogs as well.

      You are wise to advise we not engage as this is exactly how they thrive. The only way to shut down this kind of thing is to stop responding.

      Delete
    15. Wise, anon 1 and Diane. This is a Kate fan blog and we can defend her all we want and ignore the ones who want to rain on our parade and should be on the "Complain about Kate" blog instead.

      Delete
  25. Probably neither friends nor foe. Wonder how many people are close friends of husband's cousins.
    The "spares" position is difficult---for a few years they are important, but become less and less so as the heir's children grow up.
    However Beatrice and Eugenie were never likely to inherit, so should have been aware that the wives of William and Harry would always out rank them. Under the new rules Eugenie does not even have to ask HM for permission to marry and one more baby from either William or Harry and Beatrice will not have to do so either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the new rule, Jean, does there have to be a certain amount of family members between the heir before the required permission ceases to exist? I'm still a bit murky on the new law. That could this be the reason for Beatrice and Dave Clark not marrying yet? Maybe there wouldn't be permission given for that union. Very interesting!

      Delete
    2. Yes the first 6 in line have to ask permission. Under the previous Act, all descendants of George II had to have permission, unless they were descendants of a marriage to a foreign royal.
      The 2015 Act also legalized any marriages where the couple had not realized they were descended from George II.

      Delete
    3. Phillip is descendant of a foreign royal, as well as of Queen Victoria.That means QEII's
      children, grandchildren are descendants of a foreign royal. The York sisters can marry whomever they like. Margaret could have. Charles could have married Camilla
      in the 1970's and her children would have sat on the throne.No problems about
      wives, husbands and exes.
      Of course, Prince Phillip renounced his foreign titles upon marriage, but he couldn't renounce his DNA. Nearly all
      of Queen Victoria's children and many of her grandchildren married foreign royals.
      William of Orange was a foreign royal. Queen Alexandra was a Danish princess,
      which makes Edward VII's children descendants of foreign royals.

      Perhaps I mis-understood.

      Delete
  26. Very nice post Jane. I always like it whenever tabloid mis-information is debated and balanced with the truth.

    There was a time when Prince Andrew was "the spare", or 2nd in line of succession to the throne. Unlike the spare Prince Harry who seems indifferent, Andrew appears to have difficulty letting go, as he slips farther down in the line of succession.

    Whereas Anne and Edward have gladly accepted lesser roles, and rejected royal titles for their children, Andrew insists his daughters be known and revered as Princesses, even though they are not children of The Sovereign.

    And I have always suspected Andrew was the instigator of that “Order of Precedence” reminder document, which was leaked right after the royal wedding. It indicates that The Duchess of Cambridge, the future Queen, must curtsy to the ‘blood princesses’ Eugenie and Beatrice if she encounters them without her husband by her side.

    Belle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince Andrew - proving to be the greatest dolt in the world - is creating ill will between the Wales family and the York family forgetting that sooner rather than later Charles will ascend to the throne and William will become Prince of Wales. As the Queen has done with Prince Phillip, Charles can determine who will outrank who and it seems Andy hasn't made himself any friends in the upper echelons! He could find himself being required to bow to Kate.

      Delete
    2. Now that would be awesome! LOL

      Delete
    3. Sorry Belle, but Edward's children have titles, Viscount and Lady.

      Delete
    4. Anon7.41 those are not royal titles.

      They are aristocratic titles and not royal titles. Big difference.

      Delete
    5. Edward and Sophie only declined to have their children titled Prince and Princess. Anne is the only one who truly declined all titles for her children.

      Delete
    6. I don't think that is strictly true. She and her first husband refused a title for him, which would have resulted in secondary titles for the children, but also for his future wives and their children, as happened with Princess Margaret's husband,
      Have often wondered if Anne would have accepted a title for herself, which would have passed in due course to her son. That is what her brothers got.
      Surprised the Queen did not offer equality to her daughter.

      Delete
    7. You bring up a good point, Jean. Anne did eventually accept the title of Princess Royal so it may not have been her choice the first go around to have her children untitled. I think her children have proved to be very happy and well-adjusted members of the family so it doesn't seem to matter to them.

      Delete
    8. Intrinsic worth cannot be granted and is more valuable than any title.

      Of course, if the title comes with property...

      Delete
    9. I think it's a blessing (for Peter and Zara) that they don't have titles. When I compare the "freedom" they enjoy with Beatrice and Eugenie's situation, I cannot help but wonder how the ladies have benefited from being titled.

      Delete
    10. I agree. As I said somewhere here of only Andrew and Sarah had prepared them better. They had to know that it would all change. If Charles and Diana had more children down they go in the sucession. Marriages of the children and then they have children. Perhaps they never thought it would be streamlined at some point to cut off funds and PPOs. I think that this just again shows that blind sense of entitlement they both had. It's not served the girls well. I do feel for them in that regard. But again comes a time when we all have to make our own way. They are both obviously educated and smart young women. So many opportunities for them to grow and do some good.

      Hoping they find the road.

      Delete
    11. I hope so too, Diane. Again, it all comes back down to Andrew and Sarah. Their own sense of entitlement hasn't served their daughters well at all. I keep reading that Andrew is the Queen's favorite but, in all honesty, I'm not sure how that can be right these days. He has been embroiled in too many scandals so I'm sure she is more disappointed in him than anything else. I've always felt like Anne was HM favorite.

      Delete
    12. Ann's children have plenty of financial scandal. Her son sold pictures of the his wedding and reception to HELLO for $500,000 and lied to all the royal guests about it. There was the Queen and Kate in up close candid shots at the reception laughing and drinking. It was a HUGE scandal. Now her son had to resign from his firm because he was trying to make money off of the Queen's public birthday celebrations.

      Zara's primary income is from sponsors, directly related to her ties with the royal family. While she is a good horsewoman, her accomplishments would not garner sponsors without her royal connection.

      And both adult children live on their Mom's estate, given to her by the queen.

      Zara did have a house but after her husband's cheating scandal, he lost his football job, they had to sell their house and move to a property on her Mom's estate.

      So all this praise for them rings hollow.

      Delete
    13. Anon 9.37 no one said that Anne's children were perfect. What was said is that someone always felt like Anne was the favorite in HER OPINION. Had nothing to do with Anne's children.

      And btw Peter left the job to avoid what might look like a conflict of interest. He was a trustee of SEL and as not to have it look like a conflict with the monies he stepped down voluntarily. And btw the company has a 'not for profit' meaning they would not be making any money off the event. Even the dreaded DM reported that fact. So you are incorrect on that issue.

      As to the rest these children are not titled and their issues have been personal and private. Private citizens. Not sure why there is a inability for some time understand the difference between being a private citizen and being in the Firm representing the Queen. They may have royal blood but they are private citizens.

      Delete
    14. Actually, Diane, that is incorrect.

      Peter only RECENTLY resigned amid growing pressure. During this whole process, he has been apart of the firm. And "not for profit" does not preclude him from taking a generous salary or perks from the firm. And the firm refuses to comment on whether he will receive any money from the deal even after his resignation, which sounds like he certainly will. There is a reason his firm's actions created so much controversy, they certainly weren't benign.

      Private citizens? Selling pictures of the Queen laughing at your wedding reception for 500k are hardly the markings of a private citizen. You can't have it both ways. They want to make money off the royal name but still be "private citizens". HA!

      Private citizens are more like Margo's children, certainly not Anne's, who will shill the royal name all day long.

      Delete
    15. Anon 11.14. This thread isn't about the children of Anne. I did not address the Hello issue has I have no knowledge on that and the real reply was based on RobinfromCA saying she always felt that Anne was the favorite. Just that simple statment. It had nothing to do with the children. My take was her comment was an afterthought on her own thinking that ANNE looked like the favorite to her all the time.

      As to the Peter issue. I am going on what I have read about it all. Share your resources if you like. But actually I am not really interested in that whole scenario as this is a Kate blog. I may not clear on why you are bringing this up as its a non issue on the topic at hand here.

      Delete
  27. Jane I have entered my name and email twice and have still not received the newsletter.Maybe I am doing something wrong. After putting in ones information shouldn't there be a "submit" or something to click on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you enter your name and email you press the arrow and it should give you a message that it has sent a confirmation to your inbox. Then you need to confirm from that email and you will be signed up for the newsletter. The first newsletter already went out, it went out Saturday. The next will be next Saturday. I am looking into adding an archive here on the blog.

      Delete
    2. Thanks. Got it. On my computer screen the arrow was very vague.

      Delete
  28. I cannot imagine the current scenario if Diana was alive. Camilla may be non-negotiable, but I think marriage and an official role in the BRF would be very, very difficult with a young, popular, and sympathetic ex-wife in the picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless he changed the law, of course. But he would need Parliament and the Church of England to agree. It would be a hard sell.

      Delete
  29. The venom in some of these comments directed at the York ladies is, frankly, shocking and sad.

    It reminds me of a quote from Jennifer Garner about her husband in VF. She reminded the public that, "You don't have to hate him for me." I imagine Kate would say the same to many here.

    And many of the mean comments here, have at one time, also been applied to Kate. Now it seems some feel the need to throw them at the York ladies in some misguided defense of Kate.

    I don't think Kate needs us to hate the York cousins for her.

    Emmy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, many mean and sometimes venomous comments have been directed at Kate. That may explain some of the pent up frustration directed at Beatrice. To me, the hat says
      it all. Comments about Eugenie here have been favorable, on the whole.
      I can't think of a single similar varifiable public insult from Kate directed
      toward Beatrice, or anyone for that matter. In this case, I'd say it was a case of
      Nuture trumping Nature when it comes down to real class.

      Delete
    2. No hate from me. Just calling a spade a spade. I feel sorry for them. My extreme dislike js for their Father. I don't think anyone has said anything mean here. They take alot of paid by the monarchy or friends vacations. They cannot hold a job long (Eugenie does generally). What is mean in stating the obvious. This blog post was about the relationship. So of course we are going to discuss the people...the history...the behavior.... it's all fact. Again no one here has said anything about hate. In fact most of us have said we have some sympathy for them. The dislike as stated as towards their parents. I think Emmy that you are assuming more than what is being said here.

      Delete
    3. No, Diane, you simply don't realize how bad you sound. A spade a spade, indeed.

      Delete
    4. The decree spelling out the pecking order of who bows to who was done because of Charles' marriage. Way before Kate married William. Anne wanted it spelled out that she would not be bowing to Camilla (unless Charles was there). It was not done because of the York sisters.

      Delete
    5. I haven't seen much venom directed at the York girls but more at their parents. Who, quite frankly have earned all the criticism.

      Delete
    6. Really, anon1? What "public insult" have the Yorks directed at Kate?

      Not inviting Beatrice's boyfriend of 10 years to the wedding and or reception was very publicly insulting. It led Jane and many others to assume (I think correctly) that W&K don't like him. It was a very public slam to Beatrice.

      Delete
    7. Diane,

      The monarchy doesn't pay for any of the Yorks' vacations.

      And what business is it of ours if their friends take them on vacation? I believe William would say that is their "private life".

      See the hypocrisy?? Different standards for the Yorks vs. Kate and William.

      Delete
    8. Verifiable.Kate toward Beatrice. We don't know the exact circumstances-who made the decision and why; do we know for sure he was not invited;were there Middlton family members-cousins such as B&E, who attended the reception without their partners or perhaps were not even invited...there simply isn't enough information to justify a label of insult. It was the tabloid press who broadcast the accusations and speculation that would have caused any insult.WIlliam did not walk up to the boyfriend on camera and say, "You're not invited to my party." That would be public.
      B's hat, on the other hand, was blatant and there for all to see then and. probably
      for years to come. It was an ugly distraction from what should have been William
      and Catherine's day.
      I do appreciate that you feel called to defend that person. Hopefully, she has since apologised and would like to put it all behind her.
      Boyfriend of 10 years in 2011? They were together since 2001? That would make 15 years of dating by now. How old was she in 2001?

      Delete
    9. Beatrice was born in 1988, so would have been 13 in 2001!
      Seems to me that boyfriends or girlfriends of members of the royal family are never invited to royal weddings, but as soon as an engagement is announced they are treated as members of the family.
      Catherine was invited to Peter Phillips wedding and those of the two Gloucester daughters, but they were not really royal wedding,where space has to be found for ambassadors; Governers General; British and Commonwealth politicians and so many others. I am sure Beatrice and Eugenia would understand that, even if the boyfriends didn't.
      I don't think Beatrice wore the hat as a snub---gave me a giggle when she tried to get out of the car, but it detracted nothing from the, stately process of Catherine and her retinue to the altar.
      Must say I admired the way she reacted to the criticism.

      Delete
    10. I really do not see wearing an ugly hat as an insult. Just a lack of taste. I am sure both sisters wished to look great on that day, as did all ladies. In fact there were worse hats, proudly worn I am sure without any wish to offend or distract from the wedding.
      I think all this discussion is blown out of proportion. I don't think there is any ill will on one side or the other.Why should there be?

      Delete
    11. Jean, thanks for setting us straight on the ten year boyfriend situation.
      You have a good point about the stately progress-a truly memorable moment. As was "the hat." I think of Catherine on her father's arm and then the image of that
      hat sticking up from the rows of seated royals.
      She made a point, got the attention. No matter whether she honestly chose the hat
      because she thought it was beautiful or to distract and draw attention away from
      Catherine, it made quite a splash.

      Delete
    12. Anon 10.48

      The monarchy pays for the vacations because Andrew uses his money for the girls. Which is his right to do what he wants. But it's still the monies from the monarchy ie taxpayer.

      Look no one says they or anyone shouldn't have fun and go on trips. I say hey go and have a great time. The problem is the constant vacations and lack of direction. It's hard to feel badly when there is no movement from them to change but still feel entitled to all the perks. There are few perks now. The pecking order hasome changed. Andrew and Sarah should have prepared them better. I blame them not the girls so much. But comes a time and an age when a person becomes accountable for their behavior. We all have to grow up...darn it.

      Delete
    13. Anon 1, there are splashes worthy of Olympic divers and then there are belly flops. Beatrice's outfit for the wedding was quite nice. I liked the style and color, but how amazing would it have been if she had worn an elegant wide brimmed hat?

      Delete
    14. It was a disaster. The outfit was very nice. But that hat was so over the top. It was avant garde couture and Béatrice is not stupid. It was so tacky. Anyone wearing that hat would have looked tacky. She knows what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate. If she truly thought that hat was ok to wear to her cousins wedding. The heir to the throne then she is either 'lacking' or she did it on purpose. It was just ridiculous. My Mother who was 80 at the time gasped and said "what is wrong with that girl". She didn't even know it was Beatrice.

      Yes that outfit would have been tres chic with a wide brimmed hat ala Maxima style.

      Delete
    15. Diane

      You are soooooo right, that's exactly how some people feel towards the Cambridges. Lack of direction, also using taxpayers money, hardly do any royal work because it might create more expectations.

      It was not the hat which stole the show or was an indult in any way but Kate's little sister and her buttock!!! She grabbed the attention that day.

      Delete
    16. My Grandma used to say,"Don't cut off your own nose to spite your face."

      I wonder what HM had to say? That's what astounds me-B must have been very secure
      in her place. Maybe it was for her Mom. That I could understand.

      Delete
    17. Ha! royalfan. Actually, the smaller the splash, the higher the score. Less is more.

      Delete
  30. I dont think Beatrice and Eugenie hold any resentment towards Kate. If they were concerned by Kates predominance they would make a concerted effort to seek a higher profile of their own. Instead they go on all those holidays and make no effort to endear themselves to the British public. If anything they are perhaps glad to be free of the expectations and responsibilities that burden Kate. Interesting thing to consider - Until the royal wedding where Bea wore her infamous hat I'm fairly certain only a small percentage of the British public knew B&E existed. They are just not prominent in public life and you must consider the average Briton is a 'fairweather monarchist', happy to celebrate weddings and births but indifferent most of the time and as such care very little for B&E. Maybe they should thank Kate they have any recognition at all?

    ReplyDelete
  31. A general plea to remind everyone to think before you post. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but having scanned the comments I know there are strong feelings on every side. I didn't write the post to attack anyone, just to reflect on the dynamics between these three women that I think is often blown out of proportion. I appreciate healthy debate and know this topic sparks quite a bit of that, but if everyone would maintain the kindest mode of expression possible toward all parties that would make your blogger's life easier. ;) Tomorrow I will try to be more through reading the comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed! Let's all relax people!! This is usually such a nice friendly forum but reading everything I'm getting scared!

      Delete
    2. Which Anonymous are you, 8:05?

      Delete
  32. I enjoyed the post and all the comments and have 2 things to add. There was an interview with Princess Bea a number of years ago when she said that Eug would just as soon not be royal, or something like that. Also, at the first Xmas at Sandringham, the York girls, as unmarrieds, were expected (I presume) to help the Queen with flowers. They (or at least one of them) shoved past Kate & Kate gave a surprised look at them. Two suggestive things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was Eugenie who shoved past Kate and the Duchess did toss her a "how rude" sort of look. Since then Kate has become a pro at the Christmas morning walk and is secure in her own skin as a wife, a mother, and a royal. That first Christmas she seemed very unsure of herself.

      Delete
    2. Oh I do recall that Christmas.

      Kate really has become very confident I think in the last 5 years. I think William has much to do with that. He has guided her well. Though she is quite savvy herself and her parents raised a very strong girl .

      Delete
  33. I enjoyed your analysis Jane. Thank you. I agree that any "friction" between B&E and W&K is probably a figment of the media's imagination. If there is any truth to it at all, I'm sure it's nothing more than the usual friction from time to time between all extended family members. I could write a book about some of my cousins (lol). Personally, I find Beatrice quite hard to like given her entitled lifestyle, but Eugenie has always been a favourite. I think her close relationship with Harry is real enough. On the positive side, I do find interviews with the York girls about their grandmother very well done. They are both well spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  34. To Anonymous June 6, 2016 at 10:08 PM

    According to the ancient Orders of Precedence for female members of the Royal family, the curtsy order (from bottom to top) and order of arrival (from top to bottom) is:

    1) The Queen or Queen Consort
    2) The Dowager Queen
    3) The Duchess of Cornwall (wife of Sovereign's Eldest Son)
    4) Wives of the Sovereign's younger sons
    5) Daughters of the Sovereign
    6) Wives of the Sovereign's Grandsons
    7) The Sovereign's Granddaughters

    In 2005, the Queen drew up a private Order of Precedence, putting Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall after Princess Anne so she would not have to curtsy to her--as she refused to do so. (Diana, Princess of Wales enjoyed the true rank of 3), although Anne refused to curtsy to her as well).

    In 2012, this private document was leaked, showing the Queen maintains a Royal Edict called The Order Of Precedence Of The Royal Family To Be Observed At Court. This document was newly updated to take into account the Duke of Cambridge's wife. It further changes the order so that Beatrice and Eugenie do not have to curtsy to Catherine... The private Order of Precedence observed at court is now this:

    1) The Queen or Queen Consort
    2) The Dowager Queen
    5) Daughters of the Sovereign (Anne)
    15) The Sovereign's Cousins (Alexandra)
    7) The Sovereign's Granddaughters (Beatrice & Eugenie)
    3) The Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla)
    6) Wives of the Sovereign's Grandsons (Catherine)
    4) Wives of the Sovereign's younger sons (poor Sophie!)

    However, this protocol only exists if Camilla, Sophie, and Catherine's Royal Husbands are not present in the same room. If the males are present, the order reverts back to the original, with the exception that Princess Anne curtsies only to The Queen, Prince Phillip, and possibly Prince Charles lol.

    Curtsy protocol in the Royal Family is a tricky business! But I doubt Beatrice and Eugenie demanded the latter change. My guess would be Andrew insisted on it, just as Anne did when Camilla married into the family.

    Belle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HRH's do not curtsy to one another. The RF only curtsies to HM and PP, privately and publicly

      Delete
    2. I'm curious, why would wives of sovereigns younger sons be ranked lower than grandsons? Or do they mean grandson in line for the throne?

      Delete
    3. All grandchildren are in line for the throne unless they are not titled. Some are just farther down the line than others. Spouses are never heirs so they immediately take a back seat in the pecking order - unless they are with their other half in which case they share his or her rank. It's all a bit antiquated and kind of too bad because it sets them all up for some sort of rivalry when it would be nicer to just be a family - except for the Monarch who, as a head of state, should always go first. I think that's why William loves being with the Middletons so much. None of that "who goes first/granny likes me best" stuff.

      Delete
    4. I am sure you are right Robin life with the Middletons is quite different. But even that may change if/when Pippa and/or  James marry and have children especially if it means the children are close in age to W&K's. That would make for very different dynamics vs parents with their adult children two of whom may have occasional lovers in tow. "Granny likes me best" stuff doesn't occur only in royal families! 

      Delete
  35. Interesting...I've always thought that Eugenie didn't like Kate. I always thought Beatrice did like her. And didn't Dave Clark and William go to school together? Wasn't their connection how he met Beatrice? I'm so confused...i remember the boat party they went to years ago, Dave and Williams looked like they were talking and getting along well.

    Who knows..

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, it seems the BRF aren't the only royal family to go through this type of scrutiny.
    http://us.hellomagazine.com/royalty/12016060314937/danish-royals-rare-statement-state-salaries/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I follow the Danish family and this is big news. I for one feel that the children of the CP and one day King should have some kind of funding. I suppose they all have trust funds so I am sure it will all work out. Fred and Mary are not know to be entitled either so I am sure their children will be raised to adjust and find their own way.

      I did always think it strange that Prince Joachims ex wife Countess Alexandra continued to get funds post divorce.

      Delete
    2. That is very odd. Diana and Sarah each got a settlement but didn't continue to pull a "wage" (for lack of a better word) from the public. I think all royal families are tightening their purse strings in the current economy of the world. It's not like it was in the days when royal families were mysterious and revered.

      Delete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!