Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Is Prince Andrew Angling for York Girls' Royal Status?

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Good morning all! This past weekend, Camilla Tominey had a piece in the Express reporting that Prince Andrew and Prince Charles are at odds again over the status of the York sisters. 


Andrew, according to Tominey, wrote the Queen insisting that his girls be given full-time royal status. 
The row escalated after Andrew, 56, wrote to his mother demanding that Beatrice and Eugenie carry out full-time royal duties supported by the Sovereign Grant – the public purse which funds the Royals’ work. The letter, originally drafted by the Duke’s private secretary and “gatekeeper” Amanda Thirsk, complained that the princesses were in danger of being overshadowed by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry when Charles becomes king.
Families being what they are
, and I know most of us have this experience, this story does not seem all that far-fetched to me. I am surprised that Andrew has kept the drumbeat up over the years, though. I think it is pretty clear that the Queen, and perhaps more importantly, Prince Charles, are not going to budge on this one. 

It is interesting that this report makes direct reference to Kate and the Cambridges, though. There is no getting around the fact that Kate and her little family have and will continue to eclipse the Yorks, and indeed, really all other members of the BRF, particularly after the immensely popular monarch inevitably passes away. 

Andrew is fighting a losing battle, if this report is true. Let me know what you think of this latest story! Is it recycled news, or is Andrew still angling? You can read the entire article here

139 comments:

  1. It smacks lightly of desperation..as if there was no plan for the girls outside of royal life. To find credit, they are trying to work and make a living (even though what they call work differs from the definition for the rest of us). But their Father seems like he is used to getting his own way. It is said he was the queen's favourite when he was a child, so maybe he is trying to play that to his advantage? Plus there have been all these stories about rivalries between the York girls and Kate/Pippa and Andrew/Charles. Whatever the case may be, when Charles is in charge, the Yorks had better look out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This may be Andrew's last ditch effort to ingratiate his girls among the working royals, before the Queen is no longer here to influence these kinds of changes in Charles' thinking. My own feeling is that William, Kate, and Harry (and in the future, George and Charlotte) will pretty much have the royal bases covered. I wouldn't think that Bea and Eugenie will need to be largely depended upon. Having said that...I know there are a lot of minor royals working on behalf of the Queen now but I'm also not sure how busy/sought after some of her cousins really are. I admittedly do not know a lot about the inner-workings of the BRF.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have mixed feelings on this. I am not from the UK so the cost of a few extra royals is immaterial to me. I agree at age 28 Bea has had trouble finding a stable career (but 28 isn't THAT old) but hasn't Eugenie worked at the same gallery for years? That work likely doesn't resemble work as I know it, but neither does Will's part-time job where he has weeks off for Christmas! (Any time I've worked part-time I and the other part-timers had to work holidays.)  I also think *some* reports of Bea's many "vacations" have been exaggerated. B&E HAVE done some charity work for years. That likely would continue but given Charles' apparent attitude why would they ever do any official royal duties for him? But fulltime support forever...

    Seems there should be a compromise.


    I don't understand down the road how Charles and Camilla along with W&K&H (apparently Charles' intended "streamlined" royalty) can possibly carry out anywhere near the same number of royal duties, appearances, and so forth as are now done by the Queen, Philip, Anne, and the Queen's elderly cousins. I also wonder about Charles' intentions to include Edward and Sophie in the future. Will has been quoted (who knows how accurately) saying he doesn't like doing ribbon-cuttings, finds them boring, and instead wants to do more meaningful work. I understand but those other kinds of "boring" duties and appearances likely help to keep the BRF "relevant" and in the public eye. Of course we don't know when Charles will take the throne but if Harry marries and has children that will likely lessen his availability for a period of time as will a 3rd Cambridge baby lessen W&K's availability. And it will be decades before PG & PC can take on royal duties. It seems Charles must envision a very different, much less public BRF. 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lizzie, methinks theres more to this than meets the eye. For one thing, there would appear to be finances to consider, particularly since both the Queen and Charles began to pay income tax. Add to that the seeming unwillingness of the British Government to hand over $$$, willy-nilly, at the Monarchs request and there is a persistent cry for fiscal oversight. Then too, any family can go broke if they have experienced generations of over-spenders, which is the case within the BRF.

      Simply put, once Charles becomes Monarch, there won't be enuf $$$ to support himself, his wife, Harry and his family, the Gloucesters, Kents, and the rest of the minor royals--at least, not in the style Charles is accustomed to live. Fat chance Charles would want to saddle himself with anyone else.

      Nor do I think that any attempt will be made to carry out the number of engagements now carried out by The Firm, collectively. I would expect that a great number will be dropped--and why not? It is ridiculous for any one individual to have hundreds of patronages; much better to have three dozen, meaningful to the patron, who can then devote time and energy to each. As it is, many patronages go years between royal visits.

      Nor do I think this would necessarily mean a less public BRF; it might mean half-a-dozen annual visits to each patronage, plenty of visits within the UK, itself, and some overseas tours as well. It might even mean digging in and doing some strictly volunteer work with patronages.

      There are two other factors which warrant mention. Once Brexit becomes a reality, chances are that the British economy will tank, at least, temporarily. Given time, wise governance, better use of arable land, etc., the UK will recover, but in the meantime, the bloated British govt will be in no mood to extend perks to the BRF. It is safe to assume that there will be no new or renewed Royal Yacht and that the Royal Train will also bite the dust.

      As well, there is the question of the current Realm countries and the larger Commonwealth. I would be very surprised if some Realm countries didn't declare their independence, just as I would be surprised if the Commonwealth agreed to appoint King Charles as its Head til the day he died--the Commonwealth would be better served, and IMO, know it, by electing its Head to serve a term of, say, five years. This might permit a worthy British Monarch--such people could be given Honorary Membership with voting rights--to stand for election and get elected, IF WORTHY.

      What I am saying is that times are going to be tough for the Monarchy, both fiscally and personally. They're going to have to clean up their act; out with spendthrifts and mistresses; in with financial and personal integrity; out with 500 patronages apiece, many of them purely symbolic and rarely visited; in with those which have meaning to their patrons.

      My pov, anyway. And I support the direction Charles is taking; hard to disagree with slimming down The Firm.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Hi JC, I don't disagree with your general POV. And I agree many of the patronages are mostly symbolic. But the court calendar does list thousands and thousands of supposed royal appearances each year. Some of them are stretches--lunch counted as a separate event from the ceremony before it, for example. But I just don't see how 5 people (counting Harry as single since he is now) can cover even 1/4 of that. One thing for sure, doubly or tripling up (as in duo or trio appearances) may not continue to work when Charles is King.

      Delete
    3. Lizzie, I get what you're saying, but it won't come down to five. Under Charles as monarch, I envision the following as full-time working royals: Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and his wife, Anne, Edward and Sophie. Personally, I would prefer to see much less, if anything, of Andrew, but it aint my call. I do like Tim, Annes husband, and wouldn't mind if Charles made him full-time.

      As for the elders in the crowd, the sensible thing to do--also humane--would be to pension them off, not to kick them out of their grace-and-favour residences, not to half starve them. Charles will simply have to absorb that cost. But, he can save on the number of staff they require, their transportation costs, and so on, and the British public would save on POs and any fussing that goes on prior to, and during, their engagements.

      It is when William becomes king that the real crunch happens, at least until his children and Harrys assume royal duties.

      It is too much to expect a personality like that of Charles to instigate,of his free will, the notion of retirement/abdication; I leave that sensible idea to William. But, its a very good idea, IMO, and would make it easier to retire other, minor royals without seeming unfair. The latter would also be put on notice and could save for their old age and, hopefully, be prepared to purchase a home of their own and, hence, get off the fiscal back of the monarch. (The Queen should've, IMO, done just that, but she isn't a woman of vision.)

      However, by the time William assumes the throne, chances are that there will be far fewer Realm countries to visit, and, perhaps, the RF will finally loosen its ties to the Commonwealth (the Queen used this as a placebo for the lost Empire) and will, instead, march in step with the interests of the British govt, which, presumably, acts in the best interests of the British people--altho, it might be helpful to do away with the House of Lords.

      As you can no doubt see, I am something of a foolish idealist; I hope for a better Royal Family; no doubt, others, in the past, have done the same, to no effect.

      JC

      Delete
    4. You've obviously given this more thought over the years than I have JC! But a few more basic things I wonder about.


      1. So far as the Queen's not having a "vision" related to her retirement.. is it typical for reigning British monarchs to step down or do they tend to die in the saddle? (Or in the old days of true regal power be overthrown and/or beheaded?) If one believes the monarch is appointed by God, it seems it would be hard to say "I'm through now" just as popes typically don't retire. I know retirements have happened in other European countries but aside from that one abdication have we ever seen British monarchs voluntarily step away? Even when history suggests they maybe should have? (e.g., George III)

      2. So far as the count goes, Anne is aging too and I really wasn't sure  of Charles' future plans for Edward and Sophie. I think these 3 have a strong sense of duty but I wonder how much of it is immutable duty to country and how much is duty to Queen Elizabeth herself. 

      3. As Robin said in another thread related to this article, it is likely hard for Americans to understand the value of having a royal patron listed on a charity's letterhead. As an American, I also wonder about the value of many of the royal appearances. They may not all attract press attention like a W&K&H appearance, but for the people who are actually THERE they may be a big deal and may keep the monarchy more relevant (and help people feel they are getting their "value for their money") And it just seems the number of those appearances would have to shrink. Although the Cambridges have stepped up their appearances a bit this year, remember the interview Will did when beginning his air ambulance job. He stated he thought it ought to be possible to continue that job part-time even when he was king! Obviously he doesn't still think that since he has said he will likely stop that job when his contract runs out. But I do wonder just how much more available he wants to be for royal duties that aren't in an area related to a particular interest of his. I don't mean that as a criticism, just an observation.

      Delete
    5. Just a quick thought JC- under the current thinking of how a sreamlined monarchy would pan out, Harry's children would not be working royals and would be obligated to find their way in the private sector.

      Delete
    6. Lizzie, I completely agree. I think even very minor engagements with minor royals are very important to the people they are meeting. I don't know would happen if just a handfull of royals promoted only a handful of heavy hitting causes. Ribbon cutting and store openings may not seem important in the general scheme of things but it must be incredibly important for the average citizens who come in contact with royals during these events. I think the likeability of the BRF is maintained by incidental contact like this with the public. With a severely streamlined monarchy, they might seem even more removed from the average citizen than
      they do now.

      Delete
    7. Lizzie, you know as well as I do that British monarchs aren't in the habit of retiring/abdicating--but its a habit they need to acquire, IMO. Just because other European royal families arrived at the idea first doesn't make it a bad one--they're just more flexible, and more in tune with the public, IMO. And, IMO, its time for the BRF to get off its high horse--the BRF seems to consider itself to be better than other European Royal families--and begin to recognize reality. True, Anne, Edward and Sophie might well be confusing duty to the Queen versus responsibility to the Monarchy; personally, I put it down to greed and fear--that is, they want a substantial cut of the Queens $$$, in her will, protection against fortune (i.e., if the Monarchy comes to a screeching halt),, enuf $$$ to see their children, in the case of Edwards kids, well educated, and so on.

      Lizzie--and you too, Faith--, IF William, Kate, Harry and his wife concentrate their efforts on three dozen or less of their favourite charities each, then they will have done far more good, IMO, than the current crop of ribbon-cutters, always provided that their charitable efforts are concentrated in the UK; that is, charity begins at home, not in Africa, Asia, etc., altho a few global initiatives would not go amiss, to be sure. Change in the BRF is absolutely necessary, if it is to survive; people are fed up, at least some, such as myself. This will leave plenty of time for the top tier royals to ribbon-cut, unveil plaques, stand on balconies and wave at crowds, etc. IMO, many facets of protocol need to die.

      JC

      PS Lizzie. Yes, I have given this royal mess much thought over the past 5-7 years. I don't approve of monarchy, in general, but I was raised by stalwart Monarchists, so I am trying to find the best way forward for what is a generally accepted as a very dysfunctional BRF.

      JC




      Delete
    8. JC-dysfunctional as royals or as a family? Or both-or neither.

      Delete
    9. JC, the Queen will never abdicate. As a young girl, she would have been well aware or at least sensed the disapproval of her uncle's actions. QE (the Queen Mother) and Queen Mary's condemnation of Edward VIII had to be difficult to miss.

      And Charles will never abdicate because he has waited to long to be king and he wants Camilla to be crowned at his side. And she would never allow it.

      I do believe there are advantages to it and European monarchies are proof of it, but I cannot see it happening in the BRF.

      Delete
    10. Wow, you really have thought this through JC! A few questions for you (and anyone else, of course)

      1) Do you think the monarch's role as the titular head of the Church of England has anything to do with the reluctance to retire? Or is it a royal variant of the British "stiff upper lip and carry on" attitude?

      2) When you say each working royal could devote his/her time to a few dozen charities/causes I am not sure exactly what you mean. For example, W&K&H have identified "mental health" as a cause. The appearances related to this cause are quite varied from Kate's upcoming attendance at a movie premiere to benefit addiction t'ment to the trio's official "Heads Together" appearances to Harry's work with veterans with PTSD. Certainly an overall worthy cause. But if each of the different kind of appearances (benefits, visits to service providers, videos for public education) and/or each affected population (children, veterans, addicted) is counted as one of the 3 royals' "three dozen or less" charities, I don't really see much of that as amounting to much more than ribbon-cutting (with the main value of royal involvement being to raise awareness of the issue.) If there are fewer royals and fewer foci of charities/causes served I'm not sure that the important but still *somewhat superficial* task of "raising awareness" is enough to compensate in the public's eyes. More "rolling up of the sleeves" might be needed. W&H's interest in conservation in Africa seems to elicit deeper devotion on their part resulting in a different kind of work effort. But I agree that if the causes are much more limited, the main causes can't all be outside of the UK as those are not only geographically removed but also psychologically removed from the lives of many UK citizens. 

      Delete
    11. Both, Anon 1, both.

      royalfan, I agree that neither the Queen nor Charles would ever abdicate, probably for very different reasons, which I won't go into here, except to state that it is my belief that both are people of weak character, no doubt caused by their equally idiotic upbringing. Perhaps, but only perhaps, William (and Harrys) was less idiotic and more humane. If Diana's influence was greater than that of their nannies (doubtful), and greater than the *the full court press*, put on by the Queen, Phillip, and Charles after Diana's death, when both boys were particularly vulnerable, then the two young men may be strong enuf to withstand the crap that their grannys court and their fathers put into the tabs.-- Hey, you would have to be next door to a fool not to recognize how determined both the Queen and Charles are that he will be the next and (cough,choke) beloved, or, at least. respected, monarch.

      Lizzie, not quite sure what you mean re 1), and until the Queen tells me, I can only speculate. Could she be a true religious, or is this just another of her pretty obviously fake acts? Dunno,but, if pressed, I would choose the latter. (DUTY RULES.)

      Re 2). Do you HAVE to be so particular, Lizzie? But, no matter. My impression, c/o the British press, heavily influenced by Charlie and Liz, is that Will & Kate are prohibited from making too many overtly public appearances, and that Harry has been heavily promoted by one or both royals---Kate is too expensive to dress and too pretty and Charlie is too busy paying the exorbitant salaries of his spin doctors
      to pay for new suits for his sons, let alone quality footware for them, or Anything for Kate. But time to shelve my sincere contempt for Charles... and his machinations.

      I don't get your worry re the # of engagements W,K &H carry out, nor what seems to me to be your nitpicking, re their overlap. I view it differently. I want all three to be happy, or at least, content--and, in particular, I want Kate to be happy. (Unlike many, she is my priority, not William, not Harry.)

      And, I don't know how you feel about African and Asian charities, but, just as an example, (myself) I don't give a damn about rhino extinction, particularly when spoken from the mouth of a man who routinely kills grouse, pheasants, deer, boar--and god knows what else. I also get the feeling that Centrepoint is just a charity he thought was convenient, but which held little interest for William. In fact, the ONLY charity which seems to consume him is Tusk Trust; just think Jecca Craig, and compare this to his Daddy, whose interest in architecture can, apparently, be laid at the feet of one Camilla Parker-Bowles, as she was then known.

      I think you are not mistaken, lizzie, W&H are both far more interested in *Africa* than in the UK, altho, since his African girlfriend more-or-less told Harry to get lost, he has developed other interests,e.g., the Invictus Games. Not so, William...but....Better I say nothing; those who understand, will know why I dislike William.

      JC

      Delete
    12. Whew, JC. Yeah, I guess I DO have to be so particular when discussing the streamlining of the BRF :) as it seems details might matter. So far as "appearance overlap" what I meant was if W&K&H appear together, that's fine but that also means that they aren't as "spread out" to BE seen by the most number of people. If there are fewer people in the BRF to appear, trio appearances may not be as helpful as solo ones. Also, if attending a movie benefit for addiction is seen as a single cause/charity and appearing at a shelter for those with mental illness is seen as a different cause/charity, it won't take long to amass the 3 dozen charities you mentioned. But it still seems that might not be much more than ribbon-cutting...and while important, I didn't think that was what you meant. All this is assuming that anyone cares about seeing members of the BRF. Judging as an American, it seems to me they do!

      Delete
    13. JC- what you said about Harry's being promoted, compared to W&C reminded me of my
      impressions when reading KP twitter lately. To me, it seems Harry's events have multiple pre promotion, photos,as well as generous event and follow-up coverage.
      Where William will have a few photos shown for a day of engagements, Harry's every
      move seems shadowed. Many, many photos for one event. This could be due in part to
      the different nature of the event each attends. William has been making a number of
      appearances as a personal representative of the Queen- Germany, Scotland,
      China, Japan, as well as taking part in award presentations at BP. They don't lend themselves to photographic opportunities as typical Harry events, which draw large crowds in public areas.
      Other than that, I don't know why KP would give Harry more complete coverage.

      Delete
    14. And a whew right back at you, Lizzie. This streamlining of the sort I have suggested leaves plenty of room for individual engagements of the ribbon-cutting, wreath-laying, handing out of titles and medals variety whilst allowing time, as well, to develop, nurture and, in some cases, even volunteer at charities of their choice. I hold the view that quality is more important than quantity. And if there are times when W,K&Hs interests overlap, then I can't see any reason why not to participate as a trio, or as a foursome, for that matter.

      Above all, fiscal matters will dictate the future. Simple as that.

      JC

      Delete
    15. anon 1, sorry to reply so late in the game, but I was experiencing internet difficulties. Nor am I on twitter--major phobia re hacking. Interesting, tho, to learn that twitter supports my POV. Thank you.

      The obvious reason--at least to me--as to why Harry is getting top billing on the KP site is that Charles fears William and Kate and their popularity, because of the potential they pose to his kingship. What better way to kill that off than to separate W&K at black, or white, tie functions and to at least attempt to set brother against brother? And Never Forget, anon 1, that Charles is the paymaster for W,K&Hs KP office staff; could be a case of do as I dictate, or lose your job.

      I sincerely believe that Charles and Camilla are sociopaths; no doubt, many would disagree, but I see many shades of warning, first expressed by Machiavelli: *Trust not a prince....*

      And THAT is why, IMO, Harry is given more coverage.

      JC

      Delete
    16. JC, IMO the reason the queen would not abdicate has more to do with duty while in Charles' case there's also an element of entitlement.

      Regarding Harry getting top billing, well, perhaps it has something to do with his single carefree prince image. Consider all the comments about him being more fun, etc. William and Kate, with different roles and two children later, have a different image. A thought...

      Delete
    17. No doubt, that enters into it, royalfan, but, as Harry continues to lose hair, and if he continues to be seen to be unable to sustain a relationship--not necessarily all his fault; pretty sure Charles, who seems to be heavily influenced by Camilla, might've had something to do with it--Harry will be increasingly seen as a playboy by one and all, further hampering his chances of marriage to a decent young woman. He won't get top billing then.

      P.S. Do you ever wonder if William and Harry have faced up to the sort of man their father is? As far as I can tell, Charles has only loved three people: himself, one of his nannies, and Camilla. He uses everyone else. Its a big ask, tough to do, but both sons need to do it; its the only way to discover their true selves.

      JC

      Delete
    18. Faith, what happens re Harrys children depends not so much upon William as upon the Queen and Charles--when he becomes monarch. Had it not been for Letters Patent issued by the Queen prior to the birth of W&Ks first child, Charlotte wouldn't have acquired the title of HRH. The Queen, however, declined to extend this titular designation to any children Harry might have.

      When Charles assumes the throne, it will be up to him to issue new Letters Patent to ensure that Harrys kids acquire HRHs.

      And, without those three letters--HRH--royal children aren't bound to fulfil royal duties.

      If there is still a monarchy left by the time Charles dies, William is going to be up a creek without a canoe or paddle unless Charles issues said Letters Patent.

      if I were an advisor to William AND Kate, I would strongly recommend that both George and Charlotte be raised in a dual manner, to be fully prepared to take on royal roles/duties, and to be equally prepared to enter Reality Street, make an honest living, earning a decent wage, in a field of THEIR choice--I see no other responsible way forward, for W&K.

      JC

      Delete
    19. JC, yes, I have wondered what W&H think about Charles and various related issues. But at the end of the day, he is their father and it would make me sad to think that they lost their mother AND do not have a good relationship with their father. I sincerely hope they do... But I will say that I have faith in William as a man given the way he treats Kate and their children. (And yes, I realize that you may not agree.) :)

      And one more theory regarding Harry... perhaps Charles is anxious to protect his son's image given his own strategy where the York's are concerned. If Charles wishes to downsize the monarchy, Harry's image becomes more important.

      Delete
    20. royalfan, you are unlikely to read this post, given my late reply, but, just in case....I see that you have recognized my belief, re William. (No one hopes more than I do that I am wrong--not for my sake, but for Kate's. ( I have taken a real liking to this young woman, warts and all. But, royalfan, William reminds me so much of his father that it scares me, for her--at least as much as as a Trump presidency does--Hey, in four years, the USA can kick Trump out, but how can Kate shed herself of William without losing both kids, for all intents and purposes?) Yes, we don't agree on this issue; I just hope that her parents aren't stupid and are ready to give her a way out, should it become necessary. But, such is life...or death, in a Paris tunnel--perhaps preferable to a lifetime of unmitigated hell.

      Re your Harry theory, I don't disagree; however, Charles seems to be going overboard to promote Harry, at Williams expense. I really do think that Charles is heavily influenced by Camilla, who certainly doesn't want competition from the likes of W&K--and God knows what she might be prepared to do to torpedo any relationship Harry enters into--the woman, IMO, is pure evil

      I often wonder about William and Harrys so-called close relationship--and I don't buy into the generally accepted view that their mothers death drew them closer together. Based upon my own experience (my mother died when I was 15), I discovered, quickly, that I could not rely upon my 13-year-old sister, but that I could rely, unexpectedly, upon my 11-year-old brother. (She was a zero, he was a hero.) Ergo, just because you have siblings doesn't mean that they'll come thru for you in dire circumstances. And Harry has recently told the world that he had never talked about his mothers death until recently. Yep, a zero, if William was emotionally built anything like me.

      I think its a given that Charles is protecting Harrys image, no matter how silly the situation. Think Vegas. But Charles never, wittingly does anything unless it, somehow, promotes HIM. True, if he wishes to downsize, Harrys image becomes more important, but, in the meantime, it would pay off if he set brother against brother. It never ceases to amaze me that both brothers haven't taken their inheritance, c/o Diana, and walked out of the whole rotten BRF. I would've--heck, I DID, altho at a lesser level. Of course, my father knew *what love meant*, kept an open door, and when his prodigal daughter came home, threw a party. Don't think the same would occur in in the BRF, and just maybe, neither William nor Harry had my balls.

      JC

      Delete
    21. JC, I do believe that William and Harry are close and IMO their words, body language, and Harry's "brother-sister" relationship with Kate supports this view.

      My view of William is that he is his mother's son. He understands the responsibility that is on his shoulders, but he is also determined to fulfill his duties while respecting and loving his wife and children. What a concept!

      I have similar trust issues where C&C are concerned, but I do not believe that Harry would go along with anything that would harm William or vice versa. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that such tactics would only bring them closer together and make them even more determined to do things their way. My two cents... :)

      Delete
    22. Thanks for your reply, royalfan. Much appreciated. But, I have a rather different view of William and Harry. In the aftermath of their mothers death--think of it as a 9.0 volcanic eruption--both were left rudderless; their father, after all, had long ago abandoned them in his headlong rush to spend his free time with another mans wife, and this continued, unabated, in the wake of Diana's death.

      Charles is, IMO, the most insensitive of parents; when his kids needed him most, he ignored them, leaving William to the ministrations of HM and her consort, and leaving Harry adrift, except for the shoot-em-up helpfulness of Tiggy. In the meantime, Charles took many weekends off, entertaining Camilla at Birkhall.

      Know all about the death of a beloved mother at the same age, and if my father had done as Charles did, not only would I have left him forever, instead of temporarily, but I would've used all of my influence to encourage my siblings to do likewise.

      But, Diana's death created a divide; unlucky William was subjected to a full court press, led by the Queen and Philip; unlucky? Harry was simply ignored.

      The BRF quickly ignored both and shunted both off to school almost immediately after their mother died--altho they did continue their full court press re William, and continued to ignore Harry. But, both boys went to separate schools, William to Eton, Harry elsewhere, having already flunked a year at elsewhere.

      Ergo, they didn't talk, they were given no time to confer--too dangerous; what if BOTH had decided to walk out of the monarchy? Together.

      And Harry has recently stated that he wished he had talked about his mothers death years before--so much for brotherly togetherness, at the time.

      My bottom line is that for the sake of George and Charlotte, the monarchy must end. Or change beyond recognition, which won't happen under a King Charles. So end it. Kick Charles out.

      JC



      Delete
    23. JC, I do agree that Charles had other priorities when the boys needed him to be both a father AND mother. And I will go along with more attention (training) being directed at William. But, IMO, both W&H were allowed to flounder in a way that would not have happened if their mother was alive. For example, some of the late night bar exits would never have happened; Diana would not have allowed her boys to make the headlines under those circumstances. And she would have been quite proactive in involving them in her engagements as she had started to do. For Charles, it served a useful purpose for the boys to be seen as being young, immature or unprepared. And I would add their military service as another way he benefited from keeping them out of his hair. His priority was introducing Camilla as his future wife and Queen...and she remains at the top of his list....

      Delete
  4. sort of National Enquire-ish IMO
    but who can tell

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my own opinion I think the Queen should grant Bea and Eugenie full royal status and they should be out there working as much as the Cambridges. It stands to reason that Wills and Kate will "outrank" them, but that doesn't matter - what matters is the good work the two princesses could do in the world, and all of the people they could inspire. They are young and have full lives ahead of them that could be useful and beneficial to their country. Andrew and Charles and Camilla don't do enough in my opinion, although I know Charles and Camilla are out there all the time, I think their mode of work is outdated and lacks the energy and connection that the princesses could bring. Even if they aren't given full status I'd like to see both girls out there working harder for the people, they are strong and could really do some great work. Come on ladies, show the Queen you don't need full royal status to get great, inspiring work done! Some ideas - literacy programs, arts programs, theater for underprivileged kids, music programs, Habitat for Humanity, etc. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well thought out & written. Totally agree!!

      Delete
    2. Completely agree Diane. I think the BRF could strongly benefit from getting these two younger royals out there working. They are young, attractive, intelligent and well
      liked when they interact with the general
      public. Also, I think they are between a rock
      and a hard place trying to navigate private
      lives as princesses. Although PE seems to
      have found her niche, PB is struggling. Even though they are not working royals, I am sure they still have security concerns as
      well as difficulties finding employers who
      want to deal with all the baggage that
      comes with them. They are in a completely
      unique position and are not comparable to
      the Phillips or Princess Margaret's children.
      PE and PB could be such an asset to the
      royal family but are so under utilized at the
      moment. I'm sorry to say that I think Prince Charles' alleged future plans for a streamlined monarchy is a not too well diguised plan to maintain his current standard of living.

      Delete
    3. Sorry but I really can't agree. I think most British people see them as a waste of space in the same way that their parents are and were. We don't need an extended royal family. The monarch is a figure head. Have the direct in line supporting and let's leave it at that.

      Delete
    4. Wouldn't that create a very watered down version of the monarchy, anon 4:01? It thrives on the very pomp and circumstance that would disappear without that extended family. Who would show up to palace garden parties? Only Charles, Camilla, William and Kate? The same with State Dinners? The BRF will become a shell of it's former self and they will streamline themselves right out
      of their positions imo.

      Delete
    5. I suppose I had Harry and family in mind as part of the 'direct in line' family. Other family members could attend garden parties, banquets, trooping and the garter without bring full time working royals.

      Delete
    6. I just feel that if all the non direct in line royals must pursue a career, for the most part, they won't have the time to attend these events.

      Delete
    7. I think that depends entirely on what particular career they choose.

      Delete
  6. I think it is reasonable in some ways.
    Since they represent royal family, they have issues doing a normal job and leading a normal life. (They have security issues, Paparazzi, Employers will be reluctant to give them jobs or try to misuse their popularity and they cannot do anything controversial due to the link with the royal family). It will okay if they are willing to do justifiable work for the benefits they get. I think they might be more preferred more by charities than Charles and other royals since they are young, energetic and popular, so they can bring awareness to the charities.

    After all Andrew is queen's son, so is Charles. If Charles's descendants can get paid, then Andrew also should be able to do that. I think may be Bea and Eugine should be given part time work and they have to earn by doing part time jobs?

    Some day Harry is also going to face the same problem and Charlotte also!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that the Phillips children do just fine so the whole i am a Royal therefore I can't do normal work thing seems suspect to me. At the end of the day the York girls simply aren't in the same position as W&H and they should learn to accept that.

      Delete
    2. Agreed! Charles is setting a precedent for how Harry's children will be treated.

      Delete
    3. I agree with the point about Prince Harry. It seems a tiny bit short sighted of Charles, unless Harry (and his eventual family) is prepared to move into private life. Which he may be, but that is a separate question.

      There are an awful lot of patronages, etc, that the minor royals do, but maybe after this current crop is no longer with us, the next generation will trim them down or take them without pay. I imagine that it is tricky business.

      Delete
    4. I suspect that Harry might actually be somewhat relieved of his children are given more of a private life by virtue of being non-full time royals. William was lucky with Kate but given how much harder it has been for Harry to find someone who wants to join the Firm he may be perfectly ok trading some of the trappings of royalty for a bit more freedom. That doesn't seem to be the York family perspective but it may be a realistic balance for the BRF in modern times

      Delete
    5. But Anon 9:15 they aren't in the same position as the Phillips children either. B&E have had "princess" titles their entire lives--titles they did not ask for-- and the Phillips children never did. I'm not sure that difference can easily be undone in adulthood. And as others have said, Charles DOES seem to be setting a precedent for Harry's children. Harry and his eventual wife may be quite happy to be in a vastly different situation from W&K, of course.

      Delete
    6. True the York girls have titles but I always took that to mean that they could chose to use those titles in a way the Phillios children could not (Anne made that choice for them). However, merely having a title does not necessarily mean that they are required to limit their options to being a full time Royal. Perhaps this entire issue really is at the Andrew-Charles level, but given their true place in the BRF pecking order and strong signals from the current monarch and next in line for the throne, I am not sure that relying too heavily on the hrh title as a justification for entitlements that go against the overall evolution of the modern BRF is a wise move by B&E.

      Delete
    7. True. I just meant that while B&E are not in the same situation as W&H, they also aren't in the same situation as the Phillips children. Yes, Anne made a decision for them but Andrew also made a decision for his children when they were born. And so the lives of these sets of cousins have been different up until this point. Streamlining may be needed but as I said before, I'm not sure how this streamlined BRF family will cover the amount of events that are covered now. B&E do their own charity work now but I can't imagine they'd be asked by Charles to lend a hand and do "royal duties" after this.

      Delete
    8. Fair point. That said, even though Andrew made that decision he is not the heir to the throne and so has little power to force the outcome he wants. Anne may have anticipated the dynamics better and chose for her children accordingly. It's also hard to say what role might have been carved out for the B&E if they (and Andrew) had realized earlier on that they may need to think more creatively about how they can fit into the modern Firm - and spent less time pushing the title/birthright angle to try and maintain some kind of parity with W&H.

      Delete
    9. Agree. Anne (and Edward) may have anticipated Charles' feelings.

      Delete
    10. Anne didn't make a decision about hrh prince/princess titles. They do not pass down the female line (unless you are the monarch). She and her first husband decided he should not have a title. Had he accepted an earldom the children could have had a lesser title.

      Beatrice and Eugenie are well down the pecking order and should not have a public role. Things will change with Charles but he is still fond of pomp and circumstance. A bigger change will come with W&K.

      Delete
    11. So Anne made this choice when she and her husband elected against him having a title

      Delete
    12. I think Anne and Edward both feel a sense of duty to crown and country instead of the sense of entitlement that Andrew feels. Therein, IMO, lies the difference.

      Delete
  7. No one is considering what the York Princesses want. Who knows if they even want full time Royal status, whatever that may be. If they do , they are old enough to lobby for it on their own without interference from their father. Beatrice is unemployed but is doing charitable work. Eugenie was in America working but is now back in England and has a job and doing some charitable work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew is the queen's favourite so if course he will try to lobby before Charles is in charge. The girls seem very entitled to me, they have been brought up by Andrew and Fergie after all, and I'm sure would jump at the chance to laze about on the public payroll.

      Delete
    2. Your status as a royal, is completely I'd to your relationship with the current monarch. Son or granddaughter is very different than sibling or niece, which is what their relationship will be when Charles ascends. Uncle and cousin of course when William ascends. Ithe has to be hard to accept that your role and place in the family is spiraling further from the center. Andrew would have done well to try and establish more of a career or at least a serious work that was truly his alone.

      Delete
  8. I am on the fence. They are afterall blood Princesses. I do think they could be utilized to some advantage not only for them but also the Family. When the Kents and Gloucesters are gone there will be many charities left put in the cold. None of their children are royal. I doubt they will take up the causes because they are not technically royal. But B&E ARE royal. I am not sure they need to be kept 100% on the royal purse but perhaps to some degree they could. The Wessex children will not take on patronages. I have also read that Harrys children will not be titled either as Prince or Princess unless Charles or QEII writes new letters dictating that there will be some new name changes. I do not see that happening. I personally do not think that Harry as the son of a future King should not continue to have the perks of that birthright. I am not sure how Charles thinks they will continue since his scales down version is bare bones. G&C will not be out and about for 20 yrs or so. I do not see how 5 of them can manage it all. I think they should add the York girls into the mix to some degree. I do feel that they maybe "tainted" secondary to their parents behavior. That is not fair. I have stated that I feel Beatrice has this sense of entitlement. Again her parents have perhaps rubbed off on her. But recently I have read that one of the reasons she has not been able to keep a job and flitted around so much was because the VERY RICH Dave Clark liked his vacations. I suppose she may have just gave into his lifestyle to some degree. Does not make one look good but hey she is 28. I sure chose some less than responsible actions in my 20s. Perhaps she needs a chance to prove herself capable of work.

    Charles and Camilla are only getting older. William and Kate will step up but I think they will continue to put their family first even when he becomes PofW. Harry will (fingers crossed) marry and settle down with a family as well. Someone will need to be there to help. That should be the blood Princesses. JMHO

    I will say that Andrew is not my favorite. I find him to be a boor and a total narcissistic personality. However it is said that the York girls are very well liked and loved by their friends, the family, the Queen and Phillip. They are said to have impeccable manners and very down to earth. I say give them a go !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure the Dave Clark excuse washes. She has had holidays on her own in the time they were together and has holiday since the split. Look at the role models she has in her parents. Both expect a high standard of living for doing nothing very much.

      Delete
    2. I think that Andrew and Sarah played into Charles' hands by being involved in one scandal after another. And, Sarah did the girls no favor by using them as her ticket to a life of parties and vacations. Andrew and Sarah should have had a serious chat many moons ago about the do's and don'ts as they pertain to granddaughters of the Queen.

      I think that B&E *could* be an asset to the RF, but only if their parents (Sarah in particular) maintain a low profile and allow the girls to shine in their own right ... passport-free, that is! And if anyone believes this could possibly happen, I hear there's a bridge for sale in the desert. ;)

      Delete
    3. Not making excuses per se Anon 4.12 just when you are young and your BF wants to fly you tend to buy a ticket. I am not sure I have ever seen Beatrice w/o Dave on a trip for many yrs.

      They expect much because their parents have raised them feel entitled.

      Delete
    4. If Harry has children while QEII is still alive, his children will not be titled Prince/Princess because they will not be children or grandchildren of the monarch or the children of the first child of the Prince of Wales. But as soon as Charles takes the throne, Harry's children will be titled Prince/Princess since they will then be grandchildren of the monarch.

      Delete
    5. Yes Jessica that is what I have read as well. It would take new letters from either the Queen or Charles. That isn't going to happen.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for that explanation, Jessica. I wasn't sure why people were saying Harry's kids wouldn't be titled. Kind of an odd rule but the ins and outs of what constitutes who gets what titles are complicated.

      Delete
  9. I think this is less about Bea and Eugenie and more about Andrew. I think that the most telling part of this report, if it's true, is Andrew's fear that his girls will be "overshadowed" by WK&H. They are overshadowed by them. William and his family are in direct line for the throne with Harry close behind and the York girls will always face that. If Andrew's demands are that his girls be treated the same as Charles' family, then he's going to be disappointed. Yes, the girls have a role to play but if Andrew is seeking equal status for them, then he needs to get over it and he needs to encourage B and E to forge their own path. They won't starve - they inherited from the Queen Mother and will inherit from their parents. They may conduct some royal duties, but facts are facts. And the British people won't be happy paying their way, not given the way they have conducted themselves (and their parents have conducted themselves), fairly represented or not. Times have changed and continue to change. Andrew would do well to accept that and encourage his girls to lead by example, not because of sense of entitlement. Lady Chatto isn't supported by the Crown at all, but apparently she does quite a bit of charitable work. The Yorks can do the same. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that it's more about Andrew. I believe that he has had an ongoing rivalry with Charles on many levels. Andrew must resent his own lesser rank and, by default, that of his daughters. And let's consider the scandals that have surrounded BOTH Charles and Andrew. Charles may not have popularity on his side, but he did manage to marry Camilla. Right or wrong, Andrew must resent what he may perceive to be Charles' "free pass" compared to his own circumstances.

      Delete
    2. Excellent observations, Jane in Canada. I always look forward to your comments.

      If the recent change in the male primogeniture of succession allowing a first-born daughter to
      move ahead of a younger brother were retroactive, Anne would move ahead of Andrew and
      Zara would be a princess. If any of that re-cycled Express story is based in truth-and given
      the track record on negative stories about W&C, one wonders-then Andrew should be thankful the changes weren't retroactive.
      Charles and Andrew- in days of yore, one of them would be lying dead on a battlefield, done in by poison, or feeling suddenly light-headed. Nowadays they just leak stories to the press and let the media do the job. Ha!

      By the way, the Only princesses of the blood of their generation? why not just say Kate is not a real princess? Apparently, Zara is not considered a princess of the blood in the BRF.

      Delete
    3. I agree, royalfan, that Charles did get a bit of a "free pass" for his indiscretions but - as much as it sticks in my throat to say it - Charles had one biggie (that he managed to marry) and Andrew has one right after another. When your friends are pedophiles and middle eastern gun smugglers, it's pretty hard to wipe that clean.

      Delete
  10. Prince Harry and his family will be fine. Two things - William and Harry are very close, Andrew and Charles are not. Also, Harry is amazingly popular, Andrew is not and never has been. As for Beatrice and Eugenie flying the flag - errr NO thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince Andrew was extremely popular, particularly during and after the Falklands war.
      Marriage did him no favours

      Delete
    2. I remember that Prince Andrew was quite the war hero after the Falklands and it kind of erased his "Randy Andy" reputation. After his marriage, and its subsequent breakdown, he lost focus and gained a true "second son" attitude.

      Delete
  11. As a Brit (and one genuinely named Kate, well Katherine, very popular in the 80s!) I would say that unfortunately B&E as Full Time royals is just not going to be accepted by the UK General Population. They need to make like Zara and crack on with life apart from the old Royal appearance. The UK public will support paying for the core Royal Family (they are great PR, although many would like to dispense with them altogether), but unfortunately I don't think many would see B&E as "value for money" lets not forget its a lifetime of supporting them. In 20-30 years time if/when Harry has a family I very much doubt his children will become full time Royals either. A slimmed down Royal family really is the way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Andrew repeats "the only blood princesses of their generation" one more time....
    Does it not occur to him that one reason Edward was made an Earl, not a Duke, when he married
    In 1999 was the appalling behavior that he (Andrew) and Sarah exhibited in years prior?


    If everyone had behaved better, Louise and James may well have been styled "Princess" and "Prince."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. They are no different than Louise and none of hem should have full time working royal status. Andrew might have been second in line at one stage but he should know as well as anyone how primogeniture works and the consequences for second, third, fourth children and their families.

      Delete
    2. Sorry but it is my understanding that Prince Edward asked for and received the Earldom from the Queen upon marriage.. I very well could be wrong but it is what I've read and have not heard otherwise until now. Something about a movie he had seen with a character named the Earl of Wesex?? Who knows what was the real reason.. And I do feel sorry for Peter and Zara.. I do not think it's fair what Princess Anne did to them.. They are blood Prince and Princess. They should at least have been given the opportunity at 18 or 21 or upon marriage or st to be bestowed a title upon if they chose one. Don't you know they've been made fun of throughout their lives and are sure to have some issues with not being styled P&P.. Totally different subject..

      More of imho is that is has been settled for a while now that B&E wouldn't be full time working royals.. Do I think it's right? No! It puts entirely too much pressure on W,K,&H! I'm sure Kate, being the future Queen and all would not mind at all if B&E took on some projects so she could be more hands on as a parent, Wills too. One particular thing that comes to mind is Wimbledon.. The Queen is patron but has never been? Thats just wrong!! How many others are the same as Wimbledon, in name only.Granted it is the Queen's name but I think Charles should be more concerned about the patronages that are being ignored, however Wimbledon isn't a great example bc members of the firm do attend, still it's patron has not.

      Charles IS crazy if he thinks the 5 of them can do it all and do it well. Seems to me that as spoiled as Charles is he is still going to be the downfall of the Monarchy. Then he will have only proven Princess Diana right! Surely he doesn't want that?! I'm afraid if he doesn't abdicated he will completely ruin it for everyone.. That will destroy the government. It seems to me it's a loose loose situation.. I don't think any of the children should have pay for their parents bad decisions. How is that fair to any of them..

      I do think that once the Kent's and Gloucester's are gone there simply won't be enough people to go around. They would all be spread way to thin and they would never get to enjoy events together like they do now.. Everyone is falling into line and picking up momentum as W&K seem to be doing H will hopefully find a wife and he will want the same 5 years W&K have gotten.. Without B&E added into the mix he doesn't stand a chance. Neither do his children! I'm sorry but I just do not see how it would work without the girls!

      As it stands right now, the Queen, Phillip, Charles, Camilla,William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward,Sophie,Anne, Kent's, and Gloucester's are it right? That's 15 people.Close enough anyway.Now take at least 6 away..If Charles does what we think he will take 10 away.. Anyway you look at it the 5 of them just simply can't cover that much.. I'm not sure he could take patronages away from Anne, Andrew, Edward, and Sophie?And let's face it even Anne and Sophie are mostly liked and admired wether Andrew and Edward are or arent.. It would look like he was against a woman having any real duties as far as being royal is concerned.. I know I'm not articulating this very well, and I apologize for that..So here it is basically.. If the York girls want a place in history other than some questionable fashion choices and being seen as lazy vacationers then Charles should make sure they have an opportunity to prove themselves. Not only as the future monarch,but as an uncle and to be seen as using his resorces wisely. Not the one that totally destroys the Monarchy for his children, and grandchildren and country! ANYTHING less, to me, is a shovenistic pig, which he probably is but whoever is advising him should tell him to do otherwise!At least then if they fail horribly like Charles and Andrew have done, it would take some of the monumental pressure I'm quiet sure W,K,& H have on them off!!

      Delete
    3. I think it should be the other way around. If the York girls want a different place in history then maybe they should earn their chance first instead of having it bestowed on them as their father wishes. They will never reign as Charles, William, and George will so they don't get the same privilege.

      Delete
    4. Jennifer from the SouthOctober 28, 2016 at 2:06 PM

      Edward was given the Earl title because it is the Queen's intention that Edward be awarded the Duke of Edinburgh title after she and Prince Philip have passed.

      Delete
    5. Anne didn't do anything to Peter and Zara. Your title and style in the U.K. comes from your father not your mother. The same scenario with Margaret's children except their father took a peerage and Mark Philips didn't. The only exception is when the Princess is the direct heir. George VI issued a Letters Patent to make Princess Elizabeth's children HRHs

      Delete
  13. The York girls are failing to appear at sheduled events (recent reception at Kensington palace for olympic team). That's not the way to act if you want that job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which leaves the impression they don't really want the *job* as much as they simply want larger accommodations, an increased allowance and a official line to paper over Bs chronic unemployment

      Delete
    2. Valerie G - Princess Anne did not decline HRH titles for her children. Rank does not pass down the female line (unless the heir or monarch). The choice Anne and her then husband made was for him not to be enobled. This would have given his children non-HRH titles as Edward's children currently have.

      Delete
  14. Also it is said that Prince Edward will receive the Duke of Edinburgh title upon his father's death, making James the new Earl of Wessex.. Sadly Lady Louise will stay the same..

    ReplyDelete
  15. Granted I am an outsider, but I am mystified by the need for the royal family to continue all these thousands of patronages and "duties" into the infinite future. Times change! Everyone, even royals must change with the times eventually! These people and their"court" seem determined to be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century England. So what if there aren't enough royals to cover all the "work". The charities and patronages can and will survive without them. Other committed citizens will take up the slack!! By all means, I hope Charles shrinks the payroll. The smaller, more streamlined BRF will be more practical and relevant, while still doing good works.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am a bit on the fence about this. Yes, the monarchy needs to be streamlined when Charles is King. I also think Beatrice and Eugenie are in an untenable position precisely because their roles have never been defined. They have lived with great wealth and have been university educated, so they should be able to get decent jobs. However, their parents never had greatly defined roles and felt entitled to all perks and grace and favor living accomodations. They can't just go quietly into the night and become regular landed gentry. For them to maintain their standard of living, they're going to have to marry well the old fashioned way. As for the royal palaces, they need to be used to be maintained properly. I think it would be a nice nod of Charles to give them apartments there, with the caveat that they hold charity functions in the public spaces. Their security would be maintained, they can be part-time princesses if necessary and they can raise their families in safety and under the aegis of the Family. I think to qualify for funds that are funded by the British people, they need to do a certain amount of royal work. All that needs to be carefully laid out, and expectations need to be communicated. I think care has been taken to lay out what exactly is expected of William and Kate at this point in their lives. When Charles is King, he may not be able to keep the schedule he does now. When Harry finds a wife, the media glare will be on her for awhile, and Kate will be able to take a breather. I don't think anyone has sat down Eugenie and Bea and said this is what we see as a role for you within the family. I don't think it's their fault. Just ask the Kennedy children and grandchildren how easy it is to find your way in this world and not disappoint the "Family."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HoosierLori, I like your comment. I think you have some good ideas and reasons why maybe they should do at least part time duties.

      I've really enjoyed reading all your comments... lizzie, Diane, Barbara, Valerie, Jane in Canada, Kate for real, and Anonymous'. I love it when there are discussions like this!

      Delete
    2. And I wanted to add a thank you to Jane for always coming up with interesting topics in the "dry" spells.

      Also, JC, I enjoy reading your comments, too.

      Delete
    3. Victoria, totally agree! A great debate, very interesting and relevant. Another topic I'd love to discuss is what will happen when Brexit actually occurs? How will it affect the royal family I wonder? And yes thank you SO much Jane, for giving us interesting tidbits during the dry spells! Also if anyone wants to see very interesting posts and photo montages about Kate check out the katemiddleton account on instagram.

      Delete
    4. I don't think Brexit will have much of an effect on the royals. The royal families of Britain and Europe have been around for centuries without benefit/or lack of benefit of the European Union.

      Delete
    5. @Victoria, Oregon. Thank you; quite a compliment which I do appreciate. Unhappily, given my late response, you will, in all probability never read this; my sincere apologies. There are times when I feel that I am whistling into the wind; comments like yours are very encouraging.

      JC

      Delete
  17. I think the importance of having a royal patron on a charity's letterhead is being underestimated. As Americans we don't fully get it so we aren't really qualified to give a definitive statement that front. That being said, I think this boils down to Andrew being the spoiled brat he has always been. I rarely agree with Charles on things but Andrew is, and always has been, the family member who expects life to be handed to him on a silver platter and now he wants the same for his daughters.

    Charles wants to pair down expenses for the royal family and I can see his point. Those who oppose having a royal family do so because of the opinion that they cost the tax payers too much money with no return. There are details on both sides of that argument are better left unsaid here, but those who feel that way are not going to be swayed by anything other than a bottom line. They want to see the words "it saved the taxpayers £500,000 to take away the York girls protection." I don't think Charles will expect five people to carry out the work of 15 but I do see him choosing to have only eight or nine do it.

    I don't understand the opinion that Harry's children will not have royal titles as his children will be what B&E are now - the grandchildren of the monarch. If they can be royal princesses then Harry's children could also hold the titles of royal prince and or princess - if he and his wife choose so.

    In B&E's defense (and I don't care for them very much) they don't seem to be pushing this. It's their adolescent father. They, however, do not have the wealth of their cousins. Andrew lives on the dole and Sarah is always so far in debt she would be in debtors prison if there were still such a thing. Sadly, they've set horrible examples for their daughters. Those two need to use their educations and go out into the work force because their "lifestyle" has been funded by their grandmother who will not always be around. I don't think their security is at much of a risk or they wouldn't be able to globe hop they way they've done without regard for safety. Their employers would certainly not object to the publicity that comes with employing them. And let's remember that it was the Queen who approved taking their security detail away. Harry, on the other hand, is very wealthy on his own just from what he inherited from Diana, plus whatever he has/will inherit from grandparents. He pulled himself together and is using his time wisely with his patronages and with his own charities. He is hands on just like his mother. When the York girls walk out in a mine field, cuddle starving and diseased children in third world countries, or do some other such thing that doesn't involve fancy dresses and champagne, I might change my mind. And before anyone compares them to Kate, remember that Kate spent part of her gap year in Chile working in the same grueling Raleigh International program William took part in. B&E traveled, drank, went to polo matches, drank some more, and one of them was even cavorting around topless in public at one point causing their grandmother enormous embarrassment.

    Edward & Sophie were both doing fine with their own careers until being called upon by HMTQ to fulfill a full time role in The Firm. Why will Edward inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title? He's earned it. Andrew may have been the Queen's favorite at one time but his constant life of scandal has not made her pre-grant him any special titles or privileges.

    I can't even begin to fathom the ridiculous statement that W,K, and H will eclipse the Yorks. Duh! W&K are the future king's son & daughter-in-law *and* a future kind and queen themselves. Harry is in the same position as Whiney Andy - the future king's son. Andrew is everything the anti-monarchists despise. Well done, Andy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Edward and Sophie gave up their previous careers, when she tried to use the Royal family connection to further that career and was exposed by a reporter pretending to be a Sheik.
      Carrying out public engagements followed. That is always forgotten now, but she was not doing fine with her previous career

      Delete
    2. I have to agree, Andrew IS a spoiled brat, worse even. And Sarah is no better! Two of the most inappropriate parents, ever. Bea and Eugenie are to be commended for rising above their parents' abominable behavior and having so much class. I do wish they'd step up though, titles or no titles, and be more inspiring in the public eye.

      Delete
    3. Jennifer from the SouthOctober 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM

      You may recall that William's gap year had been announced and Kate's gap year - quite coincidentally I am sure - just happened to model William's to a T. Say all you want about Kate going to Chile to help people, but a mission trip is fun (and also helps people), and she had an alternate agenda...

      Delete
    4. Kate and william were not at that site at the same time. She would not have seen him
      and this would have been obvious to Kate when she made her plans, assuming she made
      them after William's plans were announced.It might have just been a popular program
      for gap year at that time and among that particular set.

      Delete
    5. The royals really don't get to pick and chose titles as some commenters seem to think. The rules were last updated in 2012 to grant any daughter born to W&K the title princess. Before that, the monarch's children, grandchildren and the prince of wales' first male heir got HRH titles. Harry's children will not be granted titles unless new letters patent are issued.

      Delete
    6. If William is as stubborn as some folks would suggest, then surely the best "agenda" could not have made Kate his bride.

      Delete
    7. Exactly, anon 1. Kate and William were not there at the same time and she would never have been able to arrange it so. I think you're probably right that it was a popular program to do at the time amongst the well to do who could afford it. There may have be fun times during the program but it is hard work and there are no luxuries. We should never set aside anything done by young people who wish to help as trivial. We have a young friend who has done several such programs in Chile, Peru, twice to India, and to Fiji. She's worked very hard on each one. (Although we did tease her a bit about how she had to endure the hardships of her down time on the beaches of Fiji.)

      Delete
    8. I read about Sophie's indiscretions during her time in the work force but it seemed so mild given the other issues and she did apologize and step down from her role. As for Edward, I always felt sorry for him trying to find his way after the military. Who wants to hire the son of the Queen with all of the protection officers and such that go with it. So, he entered a field where personal security and all those trappings are more common and then was criticized for it. As it turns out, he is the only one of HM children who hasn't made a complete mess of his life with scandals and divorce.

      Delete
    9. I enjoyed the one or two programs I watched that Edward produced/narrated. I thought
      them intelligent, nicely filmed, and interesting. He certainly chose subjects he was
      knowledgeable about.
      The trappings of royalty both enhanced and eventually destroyed his attempts at an
      artistic career.

      Delete
    10. I, too, recall watching a few programs narrated by Edward, and thinking back--had no idea that he was a prince--he did a terrific job.

      JC

      Delete
  18. I have read that all of the Queen's descendants receive income from a Royal Trust Fund she has personally set up for them, so I wouldn't really worry about any of them... I believe Princes Charles and William's families are excluded, because of the Duchy--and eventual Throne.

    The Queen also personally supports her own cousins, and they perform public duties on her behalf.

    When William is King, he can likewise appoint and/or support his cousins if he wants, but I don't see Prince Charles supporting anyone after The Kents and Gloucesters are gone. Things will change drastically once he is King. He really does plan to scale down the Monarchy, including moving the Royal home-base out of Buckingham Palace. He plans to stay in Clarence House, and operate from St James Palace and Windsor instead.

    Belle

    ReplyDelete
  19. It seems to me that this is more about Andrew's fear of being overshadowed and the biggest issue of all--money. He is looking for them to be taken care of financially. He has also asked that they be given larger and grander palace apartments as befits a "blood princess." He wants them settled before the Queen goes. That is what he is used to himself and he wants the same for his children. I don't think this has anything to do with the York girls wanting to serve their country.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Might as well keep Kensington Palace as the "Aunt Heap"!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ok my imagination has run amok.... Please indulge me on this. Let's say King Charles has ascended the throne (sadly HM and Prince Phillip have passed away). He prefers to base his office out of St. James Palace and he continues to reside at Clarence House. William and Harry base their London operations, both office and homes, from Kensington Palace. What happens to Buckingham Palace? All offices of the lesser royals (Andy I am talking about you!) could move to their respective homes or to Windsor Castle. Does Charles gift it to the nation and it becomes the next huge art museum housing the Royal Collection similar to the Louvre or Hermitage? Does he gift it to the government and it becomes the next White House? Remember the Palace of Westminster was a royal palace before it became the seat of Parliament. He could still do grand occasions like State Dinners, investitures, balcony appearance, etc. there. He would hire staff like he does for Dumfries House- it's an internship for those wanting a career in hospitality or culinary arts. Admissions from tourists could generate dollars to renovate BP and maintain the state apartments and the royal collection. He could experiment and turn it into a more sustainable structure with new green technology. Solar albeit decorative panels above the Queen's gallery, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I hear BP is sadly run down. Maybe Charles will keep his residence in Clarence House so BP can be renovated and brought into this century. I think they would definitely need to keep it for the big formal occasions and not turn it into something with public access like a museum. But I do think it will take millions to renovate. Maybe they'll keep certain offices there and open the rest to the public for tours to help pay for the renovations. That's how they offset the costs to repair the fire damage at Windsor Castle.

      Delete
  22. I think Andrew's one redeeming quality during his whole life, and maybe the reason he was supposedly his mothers favorite, is that he was very good looking. He was the only one of the four siblings who could be described as handsome. And I think he has been riding that train his entire life, thinking he could behave badly but get away with it because of his good looks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to say that his biggest redeeming quality in my eyes is his loyalty to Fergie. No matter what she has done he has protected and supported her. That, to me, is priceless.

      Delete
    2. Maybe you are right, Barbara.  But I have also read many places that Edward is her favorite and he is attractive too unless baldness is a turn-off. With this latest B&E issue I agree most stories claim Andrew is the favorite son. But so far as being "good looking" please don't forget Charles was considered quite the "hottie" when he was young. May be hard to believe now but he was! And if a mother felt looks were an issue ut would probably start early on.

      Delete
    3. I have ridden the good looks train my whole life, Barb. It ain't so bad...

      Good Lookin'

      Delete
    4. Andrew was the most good looking of the Queen's children but I hope she wouldn't favor one over the other for that. He used to be very charming (until he started eating sour pickles for breakfast) and that's probably why the rumors. But, I do agree with Beth that he has stood beside Fergie through thick and through thin.

      Delete
  23. When HM succeeded, it was reported that she and the Duke of Edinburgh wanted to stay at Clarence House and use BP as offices and to entertain. but Churchill was against that.
    Don't know whether that was true or whether Prince Charles has the same idea.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Buckingham Palace is a part of the Crown Estate that is controlled by Parliament. It is not The Queen's personal estate (like Balmoral & Sandringham are). The Government is responsible for the upkeep of BP, but to bring it into the 21st Century with new roofs, electricity, plumbing, heating & cooling etc... is estimated at $500 million, which no one wants to pay for.

    BP is already a museum and tourist attraction. If the Royal Family move out, it could be an attraction year round, the revenue from which would help pay for the needed upgrades. And it would still be used for official state offices and receptions, balcony appearances etc...

    Belle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a really interesting point, Belle. I personally think that K & W will not utilize even half the residences the Queen rotates through yearly. Charles, yes. He adores the pomp & tradition. K & W, no. Nor do I think they will do all of the mindless traditions that take up so much of the Queen's time.

      So, then the question becomes, if W & K ditch a lot of that, how will it affect the monarchy?

      If BP is no longer the Monarch's residence, doesn't that change something intangible?

      I think so. Where does the line that's too much to cross lay?

      Delete
    2. William already stands in for HM for many of the "mindless traditions" that take up her time. He has done many investitures, shaken many diplomatic hands at receptions, gone to events with HM when PP was ill, and he and Kate have hosted events at KP. It seems William does more of that than Charles - or at least it's reported more.

      Delete
  25. Hi Jane. Do you have any idea when we will see Kate again. I see William has a gala for Centerpoint in November. Again he is attending without his wife. I. Know it is his thing but is it not Kate's job to support William. I would think attending these black tie engagements would be included.
    Yes she is a hands on mom but this is in the evening when the children are sleeping. Or can it be that William would rather do it on his own. Not to say there is anything wrong with them.
    But Kate hardly ever attends these with William.
    Just trying to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pauline-Centrepoint is William's charity and the event is an evening one.
      Kate apparently is going solo to an evening event for Action on Addiction.
      At one point, the Cambridges seemed to arrange for one parent to be home with evening functions.
      Many, if not most of their joint appearances occur during the daytime hours.This
      may involve Nanny work hours as well as having one parent at home.
      The evening engagements sometimes start early -before bed time, perhaps.
      I really don't think anyone is purposefully avoiding anyone.

      Delete
    2. I think we forget that, unlike most Royal Mums of the past, there is only one nanny. her hours I am sure are elastic, but the law is pretty strict on the number of hours anyone can work. I suspect she also gets about 6 weeks holiday each year, so that is possibly why Catherine has had no engagements for the last couple of weeks.

      Delete
    3. Since children they have pretty much always gone solo in the evening. I think it's great that one of them is staying home, maybe for bath and story time or maybe because one is a bad sleeper and prefers a parent when they wake up. I also like the fact that it's not always Kate who stays home. If you know anything about the BRF you know that its members often have dysfunctional relationships because parents were absent for significant periods of time. Hurrah for William and Kate prioritising their family.

      Delete
    4. Separate engagements are a reality of royal life and they don't equal marital problems just as joint engagements don't necessarily guarantee bliss. I recall Charles and Diana being driven in one car for the sake of the cameras only to split up a short time later.

      I honestly don't understand the speculation regarding W&K's relationship. They appear to be beyond happy and in sync from what we are privy to.

      Delete
  26. The York girls are young and un-established - not an uncommon position to be in! Many parents go too far on their children's behalf, robbing the children of life lessons and valuable experience. No surprise that Andrew sees them struggling and does he all can to set them up for ongoing support and comfort; I think many of us here would do the same. However, I don't think he'll get what he's angling for and I don't think what he's angling for is even best for the York girls. They really need to put their heads down and move forward, concentrating on how blessed (#blessed) they are and focusing on work and family, where most of us get our rewards and happiness. They're not going to starve - and that's lucky for them, because not everyone in this world can say the same. If they'd endeared themselves to the British public perhaps they'd be in a different situation now but their parents didn't have the ability to guide them through doing so and it didn't come naturally. C'est la vie.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have no doubt that this story is true and my sense here is that Andrew's battle for the girls' place in the public life of the Royal family is an old one: I remember reading quite a few years ago that the Queen was considering removing their HRH status and that Andrew managed to convince her not to.

    I also tend to agree with Diane: I don't see any reason why Beatrice and Eugenie shouldn't be full-time royals and I personally dislike the idea of a much-reduced Royal family. I think all its members who want to be involved should be. Often, the work done by family members like the Princess Alexandra and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester isn't reported in the press but I have no doubt that the charities and institutions they support are grateful for their patronage.

    That said, I don't think any members of the Royal family should be at all surprised that they are eclipsed by the Cambridges. That is simply the way it's going to be and if I hope Beatrice, Eugenie and Andrew wouldn't be silly enough to feel put out by that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is a very difficult situation given that many British people do not want to pay for the larger family concept. I think this is more for our British readers to decide.

      Delete
  28. It seems Princess Beatrice toured Asia for a charity recently and is to attend a dinner in
    New York City related to her visit.
    The Express article was not only re-cycled, it was pure speculation. Possibly all she needed
    was the boyfriend break-up to free up her time. I think it is a wonderful start. Surely she had security protection for the trip.
    A feud between Charles and Andrew makes for more interesting reading.
    I wonder why this story of Beatrice's tour is just now being publicized?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's entirely possible the timing was driven by Andrew as an attempt to justify his letter. And while B has been "on tour" it's not quite the same thing as focusing on a particular charity or cause.

      Delete
    2. The tour was for an eye charity. Royal Central had information. I'm not familiar with that site and I'm not sure about its reputation. It was an impressive itinerary to me. Since it involved some of Sophie's interests, I wondered if Beatrice might have
      taken her place.
      The lack of pre and interim publicity causes me to wonder if the Buckingham Palace/
      Monarchy sites would have had this. I didn't see any mainstream articles.

      Delete
  29. I am thinking that they should be given more royal duties
    Why?
    Even though the Cambridges will always be the center of attention, at least during the next few years the sisters can take away some of the Royal duties and dive them more time to be with the kids.
    Besides I have always thought that everyone should have some duties of some kind, also it will help to delegate Royal duties and the sisters can attend certain Royal events on behalf of the Royal Family (like St. Patrick´s day)

    I wouldn´t harm anyone for them to have more duties :p

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is an interesting conversation, in a dry spell, as one writer aptly put it. The basic concept in a Royal Family is the only individuals really impt are the next line to the throne. First Charles, then William, etc... Harsh sounding, yes, but accurate. Obviously that breeds discontent and jealousy in some of the other family members. Human nature being what it is. Notice I said some people, because some lucky souls are happy to escape a life of endless duty... What Charles and William need to recognize and be careful of, is that this same fate awaits Harry. To think that he will escape it because he and William are close, and because he is popular with the public is naive. If they do not wish the future to be similar for Harry, they need to include and welcome the York girls, and put them to work!!! If they are comfortable with Harry's future inevitably mirroring the York girls ( albeit some years down the road ), then most certainly, slim down the monarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! What happens here will affect Harry and his family in the future. After Charles and Camilla are no longer here, the working royals will be William, Kate and their
      children only. Perhaps, Harry and his wife but not his children. I just don't see how
      that is going to work.

      Delete
    2. Somehow I don't think Harry really gives his HRH status much thought. I think we'll see him with orphans and elephants and vets no matter what his status. If he needs an outside job, he is a pilot and is great working with people. Harry will be fine. He could probably be happy living in a pup tent. Being out of the spotlight could even help if he tries to find a life partner.

      Delete
    3. I completely agree with you anon 1. Harry will be fine either way. He doesn't carry the burden of leadership William must but he is passionate about what he chooses to support.

      Delete
    4. I really don't see Harry in the same position as the York girls. Harry will be the brother of the King and in a totally different position than the York sisters, it would be similar to Princess Margaret's relationship to the queen. It is Harry's children that may come into the same scenario.

      Delete
    5. If the tabloids have it at all right, Harry's purported relationship with Meghan Markle being splashed about will probably set him back about 19 years! I think the speculation is appalling and I just cringe when I see any of the tweets and reports. If Harry has any hope of finding a life partner, the press need to lay off for a bit and let it develop. Yes, public interest comes with the territory, but Harry served his country and his grandmother well, a little humanity from the tabloids would be nice. And if you think that's possible, I have a nice alligator infested swamp for sale....

      Delete
    6. If life gives you alligators, make purses.Ha!

      I agree, Jane. There is an ugly mindset out there. Scary, but nothing new. That doesn't
      excuse it. 100-200 years ago a barrage of hateful words just resulted in a return
      barrage of wrath or a duel at sunrise. Now, it could conceivably lead to annihilation.
      I guess the tabloids may light the match and fan the flames, but
      it is spread by those who are merely enjoying a gossip.
      People in the public eye are real. They aren't just characters to be objectified.

      Obviously, I am fond of analogies.

      Delete
  31. ok behind all this there is only one simple question to be asked why does one want to be a royal or what does the expect from them. lets face it other than countries like middle east and other select countries royals in Europe except Monaco they HAVE NO POWER. so what is their primary function charity work, as long as you can keep up that front people will put up with the royals, dresses and palaces and expensive vacations are all secondary which they can continue to enjoy as long as people believe they are actually doing some charity work.

    Now for me I don't get the feeling that William and Kate actually enjoy being out there, it looks to me they are bought out kicking and screaming, if the Monarchy was dissolved tomorrow, they would run as fast as they could taking their millions away from the public without batting an eye lid. Now the only person amongst the younger ones that genuinely scares seems to be Prince Harry. What happens after the Queen dies, royal brand needs to be reinforced again to the public why to prove they are relevant. Now do we really want to put two girls out there whose primary interest is to find a hobby, charity work should come from within a willingness to help people can't be taught and it can't be faked either if you are not interested. The more public sees these royals are just huffing and puffing and just don't genuinely care the faster they will die out.

    I see a lot of difference between the Scandinavian royals and the British. I think there is a huge cultural difference as well, if you look at Mary, Victoria or even Maxima they have a genuine bond with the people, because it seems they want to be out there and do such innovative work, so they are rewarded with love and respect. Brit Royals have this wall and the people just have this icy demeanour towards them, I know public come out in thousands whenever there is a function but a genuine warmth is missing. I think British monarchy will end a lot sooner if there are more useless extended family out there using public money who just don't want to do the work. Brit royals need to remember they only exist in the mercy of the Parliament, one law passed with public support and all these guys will be given a royal boot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Granted, few monarchs have overt power. If one should shout,"Off with your head!" I doubt he would be taken seriously. What can be done behind the scenes using tradition
      and the culture of influence is power that is just as real.
      Charity works may be a sort of a spoon full of sugar that helps the monarchy go down
      to some-however, I've seen photographs of royals, especially Harry, Kate, and Sophie, that absolutely exude warmth and connection in a charity milieu.

      The older generation of royals were raised in an environment in which showing emotion was inappropriate or
      a display of weakness. They aren't so good with the warm fuzzies, but that doesn't mean they aren't sincere and caring.
      Finally, charitable projects constitute only part of the purpose and function of a
      monarchy. It is a unifying force during times of war; a source of continuity with a
      stabilising effect; a source of national pride and identity;a reliable tourist draw.

      There may be rocky times for awhile after QEII is gone, but there have been many such times-
      following QEI's death with the lack of a viable heir is one. Here they are, going on 500 years later- Parliament and public approved.

      Delete
    2. British friends, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are far more royalists than republicans in Great Britain it's just that the anti-royalists are louder and get more press.

      I don't think William & Kate dislike their royal work. I believe William just has such an extreme distrust of the media. Given his life with his mother it's hard to blame him as she was truly hounded and his parents every issue (both real and imagined) played out on the front pages as if it were some sort of entertainment. He is of a more shy personality than Harry so he doesn't hide it as well. I see genuine interest in him when he is with youth especially and I think they truly want to see a better world in which their children will grow up. I believe William and Harry particularly care about carrying on with the work their mother started. Say whatever you will about Diana and Charles's problems, Diana was dedicated to crown and country as she knew this was her boys heritage and legacy. She taught them to value, respect, and honor their positions.

      As for the Scandinavian comparison, I think the royal families smaller countries with much smaller populations do get to achieve and intimacy with their subjects that is impossible with the BRF. I'm not sure that the entire populations of Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Monaco put together equal the population of Great Britain and that doesn't include all of the realms and territories.

      Delete
  32. Catching up on this thread and it is very interesting. Quite the difference of opinion. I think I am going to sit over there ->>>>>>> 🛋 with a cuppa 🍵and read my new Gregory book (yes I know its fictional history but I love Katheryn Parr) 📚

    And let you all debate further 😊

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Home from church on a rainy day and I'm ROEing with my umpteenth reading of "Daughter of Time." It's falling apart but it started my love affair with Richard III whom I believe was NOT the villain the Tudor puppets painted him to be. Love Philippa Gregory! Have you read any of Anne Easter Smith's books? I think you'd enjoy them if you haven't. Are you on FB, Diane?

      Delete
    2. Richard III is my guy. I'm so glad he finally was honored and respected, even if in death. Shakespeare had political reasons for his portrayal of the king. He was right about the mis-shapened spine, although he mis-named and exaggerated it. Apparently, Richard the Third was an excellent horseman and soldier. Anyone with the degree of
      spinal problem that Shakespeare described would not have been able to climb onto a horse, let alone don a suit of armour, carry a lance, and ride one.

      Delete
    3. Oh Robin I have been ROEing too much! I am sitting here at work in my witch hat leggings LOL I just got a Sarah and love it!

      I also love Philippa Gregory and her books! Did you see the White Queen on STARZ? The sequel The White Princess will air in 2017.

      I have Three Sisters, Three Queens waiting to be read as well!

      Yes I am on FB! Same name but there is a P in the middle. Really do not want to put it on here. Same profile pic.

      Delete
  33. The idea of great privilege and entitlement is becoming an outdated notion. The Royal Family is great PR for England, but they will be streamlined in the future. It is difficult for me to imagine the UK without Queen Elizabeth. She just has always been there, or so it seems. However once she isn't, things will change, in my opinion. How that will happen depends on Charles, and how he will be perceived by the people. If he is as popular as his mother, which I am skeptical about, then the change will be slower. I do believe though that they give more than they take.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Assuming press accounts are true:
    To a great extent, the sins of the parents are being visited on these women. Andrew and Sarah haven't redeemed themselves in the public eye after multiple episodes of misjudgement (friendship with an accused pedophile, shady financial dealings with foreign nationals of questionable character, using royal status to fund transport to luxury golf vacations, and attempted influence peddling and tchotchke sales based on title gained from a failed marriage).
    When she graduated from university, press accounts stated that Eugenie left with the highest marks of any of her royal contemporaries. Beatrice spent her post-grad years in various jobs close to wherever her now ex-boyfriend was working. Like other women her age who go through the end of a long term relationship, now she has deal with a change in expectations.
    These two don't really have precedent to follow, as the last two blood princesses (Margaret and Anne) didn't go to university and it was just assumed they would take up royal duties.
    I don't think the monarch should be expected to fully support them financially in exchange for royal duties. But there should be some opportunity for them to do public charity work, if that's what they want. Or live private lives, if that's their choice.
    All that said, Kensington Palace already has the best possible security in place.
    If there is vacant space and they pay market rate rents like the Kents and Gloucesters, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anon 10:17 you have layed out the story very well. As you said "if press accounts are accurate".

    ReplyDelete

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!