Should Princesses Beatrice And Eugenie Be Given Full-Time Royal Roles?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863928/Queen-centre-row-sons-Prince-Charles-blocks-Prince-Andrew-s-request-Beatrice-Eugenie-given-time-royal-roles.html

Talk about 'passing the book'.

/// The Queen reportedly passed the matter on to her Private Secretary, who in turn referred it to Prince Charles. ///

/// Charles suggested a member of Government should tell Andrew his daughters would not be given the roles, it is claimed. ///

[Cloverjo]

Were you serious about the Princess Royal, murraymints?

Didn't she say "Oh, how ridiculous!" to someone who'd waited in the cold to see the royals go to church on Christmas Day and give her some flowers?

I like William, Harry and Kate. The others should go and get proper jobs, IMO.

[jno]

well, I can only agree with the Princess Royal's opinion, Cloverjo, it is a bit daft to hang round in the snow to give a princess some flowers. A touch rude, no doubt, but she gets that from her father. Notably, although she does plenty of royal work herself, she hasn't had any of her own kids made princes and princesses.

[Jackdaw33]

That's because they are not and she refused the offer to make them so.

[EcclesCake]

Heavens above, this thread is a quick route to dislike someone.

[Cloverjo]

Well, I agree, jno. I don't understand people who hang around a church or camp on the streets to see a royal funeral, church-going or new baby, either. But she could be a little more gracious.

If she didn't want her children to be Prince and Princess, why didn't she relinquish her own title as well?

[Jackdaw33]

They were not descended through the male line so were not entitled. Only the monarch can vary that.

[Jackdaw33]

The Queen offered to make Mark Phillips an earl so that his children would have titles, albeit not royal, but he refused.

[naomi24]

To answer the question, no. Royal roles require the acquisition of an element of respect from the public for those assuming those roles. Frankly, I can't imagine those two ever commanding that. They should forget the 'royal' bit and go out and earn a living.

[jourdain2]

My immediate reaction is 'No'. The Queen, very sensibly, decided some years ago that the Royal family's privilege should be limited to the immediate succession in order to assuage concern about the costs of 'free-loaders'. The young ladies will not find themselves 'on the streets' and they have the huge advantage of their connections which should enable them to live very comfortably and earn a living without recourse to taxpayers money.

[anneasquith]

Oh come on. How. Would they girls fit in royal duties around their holidays, or their full time processions......... Oh wait a minute do they work ?

[tonyav]

Both self employed !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3717366/Beatrice-leaves-fourth-job-five-years-launch-career-business-consultant-Princess-resigns-post-New-York-form-start-up.html

[naomi24]

^ That's handy. :o)

[anneasquith]

Self employed tony ? Jobless then :-)

[tonyav]

Pretty much so I think, anne.
Probably why daddy is trying to get them on to the family payroll.

[anneasquith]

Nice pumpkin :-)

[tonyav]

Aw, they all say that ;-)

[MissLead]

Beatrice and Eugene- No, definitely not - all they have done publicly is wear funny headgear. Princess Anne, I think, did her "bit" for the "firm" and then graciously retired from public life. I can't think of any of the present generation of that family adding any value, apart from Harry, William (and Kate, as long as her own family keeps schtum) and their children, who are too young for us to judge them yet.

[jourdain2]

I think the pumpkin's good, too, tony. :)

[tonyav]

Thank you, jourdain.

[Mamyalynne]

Phwoarrrrrrrrr!