First, let me thank Celebitches Erin and Rachel for sending this story in as a request for coverage. I love that people enjoy it when I bitch about the work-sky royals! And this is one of the biggest work-shy-royal stories we’ve ever had. I’m not sure what happened or who pissed off whom or whether Prince William is terrorizing his cousins, but the Daily Mail just slammed the crap out of Princess Beatrice. Granted, Beatrice is shady as hell these days – I still don’t believe she was in San Francisco for a “financial course” and I don’t believe she does much of anything in general. The Daily Mail agrees – their article is an EPIC tale of vacations on someone else’s dime.
According to the Duke of York’s official website, Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York ‘works full time in business’. The site also trumpets the many charitable pursuits of HRH (as her father Prince Andrew is so keen for her to be known). Its message is clear: the sixth in line to the throne is busy, self-sufficient and no burden on the public purse. The only problem is, the activity that appears to keep her most busy is, well, holidaying. This week the 26-year-old jetted off to Verbier in the Alps and is enjoying her 11th break in less than six months.
Given that she resigned from her last job, as an intern at Sony, back in January — after just 12 months in the role — these many trips rather invite the question of precisely who is paying for them. For while Beatrice receives no public funding, she shows no signs of earning any money, either. There have been reports of a U.S. move and interviews with finance companies there, though this is yet to materialise. Not that her career uncertainty has affected her holidaying. On Sunday she headed straight for the airport after church with the Queen, and 11 holidays in under six months is a record even for this particularly itinerant princess.
How does she afford it? Those close to Bea say most of the funding comes from her parents (though where their money comes from is even more of an enigma; sources say Andrew is funded principally by the Queen). Boyfriend Dave Clark may also aid her lifestyle; he earns a healthy six-figure salary and is able to arrange much of her travel free as part of his role at Virgin Galactic. Presumably he will earn even more in his new role at taxi giant Uber. ‘Let’s face it, it doesn’t do Virgin any harm that the company gets a mention every time Bea appears on Dave’s arm,’ was the assessment of one source.
Another said ‘her father buys a business-class ticket on British Airways, but they always bump her up to first’. She can stay in Verbier and New York for free at her parents’ and sister’s homes. And her St Barts trips also appear to have been freebies — the first one on the Mittal yacht, the second on a yacht paid for, say friends, by comedian and close friend Jimmy Carr. Once there, living expenses would be minimal.
The Princess also benefits from her many well-connected, well-off friends. Many enjoy the use of private jets — the Reuben family own London Oxford airport and Battersea Heliport — so the potential for ‘lifts’ is almost unlimited. Others have large holiday homes or, like the Tangs, are more than happy to provide accommodation for their famous, royal connections.
The bulk of the article is devoted to listing all 11 holidays/vacations Beatrice has enjoyed over the past six months, which you can read at the Mail’s website. To be fair to Beatrice, the Mail lists some “vacations” which are half-work, like going to the UAE with her father and then just spending a few days doing fun stuff. You know who else does that? Will and Kate. That being said, I feel like the Mail missed a few holidays, because they literally didn’t mention whatever “time off” Beatrice had for the Christmas holiday. I assume she was at Windsor Castle. Surely we should count that as a holiday too? But yeah, UAE to Shanghai to St. Barts to NYC to Verbier to Colorado to Greece and then back to the ski slopes of Verbier. And on and on. Girl, get a job.
Photos courtesy of WENN, PCN.
If I could spend my life vacaying for free, bet your bottom dollar I’d do it! If she doesn’t have to work and she doesn’t want to, why should she?
It’s not like we’re paying her bills …
My thoughts as well. Who expected her to do anything?
She’s just like her mother – a lazy, toothy, badly-dressed brat.
Agreed. F*ck, I wish I could live that lifestyle 🙂
That if you’re not from the UK.
It is the British tax payers who pay for her vacays and clothes. Literally.
Funnily enough, I am from the UK – but am now an American citizen. The article clearly states that she doesn’t get any taxpayer money.
From the article, it sounds like she gets discounts from Virgin airlines because her boyfriend works for them, and that she’s able to spend time in places where her parents own homes. Doesn’t sound like she stays in hotels.
The other trips seem to be paid for by friends. (She has really nice friends! Maybe Kate and William should try to get in on this deal).
To me, it sounds like she gets it from her parents, who get it from the Queen. If the taxpayers pay the Queen, they are paying for everyone.
Beatrice gets her money from her parents. It is used to pay for her clothes and food and party money and gym bills and party money and her health insurance / medical bills and and…
Her parents / her father get an allowance from the Queen.
The Queen gets money from the taxpayer to support her family.
So the taxpayer is paying for Beatrice’s holidays.
I have no doubt she gets money from her parents, but the article has also noted her other sources of income as to how she pays for her holidays, and it does appear as though that she seems to get money from other sources as well (like, some unusually generous friends. Must be great to run in those circles..). I’m just going by what the article explicitly states.
Don’t royals live off taxpayers’ money?
If they don’t want them to live off their money they should make effort to shut down the whole royalty system and move on. I think we’re at the point where the royals are admitting they mostly did cushy eye candy jobs for the public’s comfort that produced no real change so why bother pretending anymore. Live it up till the public says stop.
“cushy eye candy jobs for the public’s comfort that produced no real change…” Public stop pretending! Thanks Amy.
Spot on, Amy!
Amy – you summed up the situation perfectly.
Amen!
So, the paper asks how she can afford all these holidays, but then lists all her wealthy connections who can fly her wherever she’s going and then put her up when she gets there — for FREE.
I’m not saying she shouldn’t get a job, because she’s living a ridiculously entitled life. But I’m not completely convinced the tax payers are footing all her bills.
The Mail is a royalist paper so they’re never going to throw her under the bus completely. They suggest she gets some money off Dad, who gets his allowance from the Queen = taxpayer funded, however small it’s still too much for this little brat.
The mail delights, no LURVES, throwing the York girls under the bus.
Did you miss the time they fat shamed her as a teen? Complete with bikini photos to illustrate what a larda** she was.
Did you miss the frequent fashion put downs?
Only a few years ago, one journalist started their article on B&E as ‘ The Gruesome twosome…..’ before going on to slate everything about them.
The DM (and other papers) don’t necessarily write about Andrew and have mostly stopped writing about their mother so the girls are open season as far as the DM and other papers are concerned.
And it’s worked because here you are calling her a ‘little brat’ on no evidence.
I thought the great-grandchildren of the Queen Mother were living off the inheritance she bequeathed them?
Lady D: yes they are.
I think the Daily Mail does both: they build up the York sisters with reports about the latters charitable efforts and their career success (Eugenie at the auction house, Beatrice’s attempts). And then they tear down the York sisters for rather ridiculous things like their weight or their clothes.
And there are many people falling for this.
Just like they do with the Middletons. Recently they have been after Pippa, with many articles about how she was not picked up by NBC because of her “cringeworthy” test. Even pictures of her walking down the street or going to a party get the NBC business rehashed over and over again. They also regularly slam the Middletons for “cashing in” on something royal or another by picking an item for sale on the Party Pieces website like a “princess party” kit or something.
Then a little bit later they are building them up again. That is why I laugh when the DM is referred to as the “Daily Middleton”. What the Daily Mail mostly wants are website “clicks”.
@Lak
The Mail are misogynist as well as royalist. Their put-downs of Fergie and her daughters are usually always related to their physical appearance. My point was it’s totally ok to criticise the Yorks, but that doesn’t extend to reminding the public that, like the rest of the British Royal Family, they are enjoying an extravagant lifestyle partly or wholly funded by their ‘subjects’.
I’m sorry, I know this is mean, but I can’t look at a picture of Beatrice without having Lon Chaney as the Phantom of the Opera come to mind.
So?
She has money and doesn’t need to work. She is a jet-setter like most other royals, living a life solely for her own enjoyment. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the world who don’t work simply because they don’t need to.
This? Royalty hasn’t been an actual job for centuries. Maybe I’m missing the allure of the system but this seems to be like being a socialite.
Sure you ‘do’ stuff but you don’t really have a job.
And the Brits absolutely LOVE their royals btw, and so proud of the angle of romance and artificially illustrious sense of history they bring to the entire PR image of their country.
So who really complains?
In Beatrice’s case, she does get indirect support — ie her father pays the rent on her apartment (in a palace) to the tune of £1200 per month (thanks, notasugar). That kind of money in central London? That’s so subsidized it wouldn’t even pay her parking fees. So her father may be paying it from his private funds, but that is definitely subsidized rent and that does come indirectly from the public’s pocket.
Are these vacations on the taxpayers money? Or her own family money?
I only ask because if it’s her family money, then who cares what she does with her time. If it’s the tax payers’ money, then I understand the citizens being upset. However, can’t some organization govern where the money goes? I mean CB covers these articles all the time about the royal family not working and taking too many vacations but I dont see someone cutting off their finance or the UK citizens revolting?
I think there is very little difference between personal money and the taxpayers money, considering where it came from.
Family money is tax payers money.As a UK citizen it is not just the Civil List that gives them the allowance ,but all the homes,which are not theirs,the servants etc etc
When Charles ascends to the throne,her life of ease will come to a crashing halt
There is a quote somewhere recently from the Queen ,saying the gifts they get are not as good as in the past.The sad thing is poor people send in items of their hard work or buy items to a family who don’t need it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a distinction between tax payer money and the royal family’s private money of which they have loads. They are often bequeathed money via rich friends and relatives, not to mention long dead ancestors setting up trusts for them.
If they are cut from the tax payer money, they will still be very wealthy and B is simply using her own trust fund money, her security isn’t tax payer funded and she pays market rate for her flat at SJP.
I am a fairly new commenter and have noticed ,apart from the fact their is not a welcome from other contributors,therethat there is a view that some contributors think they have the true and only perspective of life in the UK and the History of the Royals,the country and anything else.I have a different view which I will occasionally publish.
My bubble is not burst as I am aware of the true nature of the royals and although I enjoy them ,the younger set are not living up to expectations.Th
As to their wealth as it is unlikely that there will be a revolution any time soon I don’t imagine it is likely to be tested in any legal way.I am sure she could live a comfortable life without ever working ,but I would say that many feel she is living on our money and borrowed time.
What was that
As an American I welcome the great UK perspectives here (some more knowledgeable than others – LAK and Sixer are very erudite) but I’m excited to add your name to the list. I hope you will be posting more often 🙂
Thanks IMO…
I think that we’ve proved over and over again that no one is infallible on this board.
And a belated Welcome. I don’t recall seeing your name before today!
Thanks for your welcome and comments.,Bluhare
I appreciate the thought.
Not to be too naively Robin Hood about it, but if the money from the civil list was given directly to charity or funnelled into government sponsored social programs rather than given to one immensely privately wealthy trust funded family… and the palaces were opened up for use as event spaces, inns and fee-charging tourist zones with the revenues going directly to charity or social programs… wouldn’t that do a lot more to help the general British citizenry and balance an increasingly imbalanced economy? I realize this will never happen, tradition, etc. but as others have noted lately, the whole royalty thing does seem so very anachronistic.
Their ‘private’ money does not come out of thin air.
If it’s not taxpayers now paying for that, it’s people from a few generations back. Their medieval ancestors did not dig up stones and built their castles themselves, for instance.
I can understand the need for the Queen, Charles, William and Harry (+partners) to get funded, but it starts to become really annoying when you see it go to this little freeloader, with her dumb facial expressions.
I dunno about the “cynical”, Celeste; that post sounded very idealistic and even hopeful!
This is the kind of person who drives me crazy. Really, your life is vacationing? In this economy? You’re not raising kids or doing charity- you’re on beaches your whole life? Both of Diana’s boys have done stints in the military and are seen doing charity work.
I was under the impression that Charles and WIlliam were trying to keep Andrew and clan out of the spot light on Charity work or Royal work?
Jenn12, they are living in different reality.
William has to do charity work because he’s going to be King. I think he vacations as much as Beatrice does though.
I don’t like any of the royals, but even if you’re a figurehead, you’re living in a castle and get money from taxpayers. Make an attempt to look like you work or do charity.
I like Harry, Charles (to an extent) and the Queen.
All the others just come off as entitled freeloaders with an unpleasant attitude.
I guess it’s her life, but I wish she wouldn’t be plugged as a hard worker by Daddy’s website.
I would go take a look but I really enjoyed my breakfast this morning. 😉
So… conclusion is that she’s vacationing a lot for rock bottom prices….???
1) How do I sign up for that?
2) From my understanding the monarchy is being streamlined. So, the York princesses won’t (CAN’T) be seen doing much official royal work, but at the same time they can’t be socialites, which makes sense. But if William and Harry are allowed to have gap years in their 30s given their higher profile positions, Bea can go on a few (gratis) vacations. Provided that she gets back to work at some point.
At some point wouldn’t you get tired of vacationing?
Obviously I’m not the jetsetting richy type, but I love my own bed, my own shower, my cats. I like home.
Meh…Off with her head!
“At some point wouldn’t you get tired of vacationing?
Obviously I’m not the jetsetting richy type, but I love my own bed, my own shower, my cats. I like home.”
My thoughts exactly – though I do wish I had a better apartment. I love travelling but I also find it exhausting. of course, I don’t go skiing or lie on beaches but visit museums and historical sites – and I can tell you that 6 hours at Louvre is wonderful but also tiring.
I confess I’ve never been away long enough to miss any of those things (except the pets). I ought to give it a go sometime!
Seriously, how do the British taxpayers put up with financing the lifestyles of these lazy Royals??
I’m pretty sure her parents have no money that isn’t begged or borrowed from someone else.
If the Queen is supporting Andrew than the taxpayers are in fact contributing toward him & his children.
The entire fact that people who will in no way contribute to England’s well-being, get so many perks for simply existing.
And all of y’all get snarky about people who will very much only have their work loads increase, while somehow giving the freeloading Yorks a pass. SMH
This.
1,000+. The Windsors got rich off an obscene tax deal given them by IRS in the first half of the 20th century. That deal only ended recently but while in effect allowed them to keep a good deal of their money and reinvest it. The massive personal fortune to which they are now heirs was mostly formed in the last 75 years – art, real estate, investments, and of course Charles gets 19 million annually, mostly tax free, from the Duchy of Cornwall, which he got as a birthright because in the late 14th century someone put that deal together so the Heir could always have an “independent income”. So, yes, the royals have gotten very rich off the public purse, and the York girls, whom Charles has firmly pushed out of the front lines to make lots of room for Wills, Kate, Harry, and their children, are afloat with nothing to do but live off the inheritances they got from the Queen Mum and Andrew’s perks. The Sovereign Grant runs about 36 million (pounds sterling) annually and supports allegedly all aspects of working royals’ household connected to official duties. Presumably Andrew is still considered a ‘working royal’ so gets a piece of it for his residence, which supports Feckless Fergie in the lifestyle to which she became accustomed as well as his two daughters’ lifestyles. If they had any interests or ambitions of their own (like, going to medical or law school) one might feel kinder, but they have “fortunate freeloaders for life” written all over them. They are a living illustration of why the monarchy is such a crock, closely followed by Waity Katie who is nakedly determined to do as little as possible for as long as possible and enjoy her life as a wealthy, sheltered young matron who occasionally pretends to “work” by showing up somewhere in a limo, waving, smiling, and returning home to her 21-room “apartment” in Kensington Palace or her 10-bedroom home in the country, for which the Queen re-directed a road in the village that led to the local church, offering to recompense the villagers for the “inconvenience” by paying for a car park for the church.
Pitchforks and torches all around, shall we?
As a Yank I can’t do the whole pitch fork and torch thing but I will be glad to hand you a lighter.
When you put it like that . . . . .
Do you know who paid for rerouting the road and the new car park?
Definitely this has something to do with the recent announcement that Kate will be taking a longer maternity leave. And you know what, why shouldn’t Prince William throw his cousin under the bus? Now him and his wife, the most lazy of the royals look like busy bees!!
You must be exhausted from all that stretching.
She might have a point.
At least you said ‘might” She said definitely. Pet peeve of mine.
Mmmm not as much of a stretch as all that.
LOL. You and I have the same pet peeve IMO.
Blu
I try to be hyper aware of that sort of thing lol. When I first started following royal gossip here I used to take the comments at face value. Then I realized that we are sharing opinions and have a responsibility to those who assume we are “in the know”
You are right – Kate IS the laziest one. Why does the DM handle her with kid gloves and place her on a pedestal whilst the York girls are constantly being raked over the coals?? The DM never seems to call Kate out for being lazy and under-worked and word their articles to distract the reader from these facts — ie talk about her clothes.
Patience, patience . . . it will come eventually. But right now she is in breeding stage – William is well liked, she is as well, and then there’s the adorable little prince and another on the way . . . once that stage is over, trust us, the darts will start flying.
please elaborate – don’t keep me in suspense!
I think we’ve seen a few cracks show. Those articles about Carole, plus the staff quitting, were a salvo, IMO. They said they’d be hiring a maternity nurse a few months ago so Kate could get more sleep. Apparently during the briefing yesterday they say they aren’t. Maybe Carole’s taking that on too. 🙂
I have a question if anyone cares to answer. I recently read that Anne’s grandchildren from Peter are in the line of succession. It confused me because I thought Anne’s children were out since they are issue through the female side of the BRF.
No, issue through the female side are absolutely allowed to inherit. Or else the Queen’s kids would be out of the running! They’ve always been able to inherit, but male children were given precedence over female children (hence we get Charles-Andrew-Edward-Anne in succession order, even though birth order is Charles-Anne-Andrew-Edward.) Grandchildren follow their parents, so Andrew’s kids Beatrice and Eugenie actually precede Edward in succession order.
The rules changed in 2011. Now, any children born will take precedence in strict birth order (so, George-current pregnancy-next kid, even if Kate’s current pregnancy is a girl and the next is a boy.)
Anne’s kids follow her, so Peter, then Peter’s daughters, then Zara, then Zara’s daughter Mia.
From what I can find it appears they are – Peter holds no royal title but is shown currently as 12th in the line of succession to the thrones of the 16 Commonwealth realms. His children are 13th and 14th.
Succession was ordered by male-preference ‘cognatic primogeniture’ for people born before 28 October 2011 and ‘absolute primogeniture’ for those born after 28 October 2011, which means that no preference is paid as to gender now.
Under the original male-preference cognatic primogeniture, a female member of a dynasty can succeed if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants. A dynast’s sons and their lines all come before that dynast’s daughters and their lines. Older sons and their lines come before younger sons and their lines. Older daughters and their lines come before younger daughters and their lines.
That’s my research for the day – going to watch game shows 🙂
Apart from all that explanation above I believe she did not want them to take a title so that they would appreciate they would have to find a job ,but they would only be out of the line if like some they married outside of the Church of England,such as they Earl of St Andrews etc ,a cousin.I still think that is the case
Interestingly enough the potential succession of a female did cause some controversy amongst the aristocracy as male’s inherit even when a Duke has daughters it goes to the closest male ,so there is a bit of a upset going on with some of the female aristos who won’t inherit the title/castle/land…..
Anne, being female, can’t pass on any titles. Those can only be passed on by males. Therefore, since her husband turned down a title on their marriage, any children from that marriage couldn’t have titles.
It’s been romanticised that she wanted them to be normal and thus turned down a title, but the cold hard truth is she can not pass on any titles.
As for being normal with or without a title, look at Princess Margaret’s kids. Her husband accepted a title thus her kids have titles, and they are normal, working normal jobs and doing quite well.
As for the general inheritance rule overhaul, that remains unfair and the men for whom it is advantageous simply don’t want to overhaul the system. It’s very unfair that daughters can’t inherit and can be turned out of their homes simply for gender. Every so often a case goes to court to allow daughters to inherit, but it’s always a case by case situation and remains unfair if entire system isn’t overhauled. What is the point of making changes at the top position, but then refusing to overhaul the rest of the system?
One more thing, only Catholics were barred from the throne, so anyone marrying a catholic as the Earl of St Andrews did, is automatically out of line of succession. Other religions have never been tested, so a loop hole exists in the absence of legislation that implies that other religions are OK.
But QEII offered titles to Anne’s children and she and her husband declined them.
IMO: Exactly, but the rules are askew here. HM as the monarch *can* grant titles (signed off by Parliament), but as a female herself, she can’t pass on titles by way of inheritance. Her father had to get special caveat to grant her children titles even though she was going to be the future monarch.
And so Anne’s kids. Anne can’t pass on any titles. HM can grant titles, BUT there is also no rule that says you have to accept the title when offered so Anne’s kids, like their father before them turned HM down.
That said, i’m confused by Zara’s position on this since she accepted a MBE (Member of The British Empire) for services to Equestrians, but I suppose she felt she’d earned that one as opposed to being given one for being HM’s grand daughter.
LAK
Does this mean that if William and Kate have children after he is king they will automatically be styled prince and princess because William is a male? Also wasn’t George automatically a prince because QEII’s letters patent stipulated it only up to the grandson of the POW? After that I don’t believe there were any provisions. In fact I believe Harry’s style is a courtesy as he is noble but a commoner?
Thanks everyone!
LAK,
Hasn’t the whole issue of Catholicism and the succession been altered by the new law? I think I read that somewhere.
IMO: William’s kids are Princ(ess) because HM took out a special caveat that extended the original rules that define a prin(ess). However, her caveat was worded only for eldest son of POW which means that William’s kids get the style, but Harry’s kids will not.
It also annoys me on a gender level because after the kerfuffle of ensuring that inheritance of the throne is gender neutral, she adds this extension that places emphasise on males and excludes females for POW’s eldest…..
There is also the thing about the rest of the aristocratic daughters being ignored as far as inheritance rules are concerned.
It especially annoys me because she was a victim of these rules, and yet isn’t doing anything about it….
Finally, to your previous question regarding William’s kids’ titles when he is king. The answer is yes. Again, something HM overlooked and didn’t correct when she extended the rules.
It shows how little she thinks about everything, the wide ranging implications and wider picture of things that need to be changed. She’s never done anything until it had to be done and even then, only changes the small thing that was causing the problem instead of looking at entire structure of the problem.
ArtHistorian: I hadn’t looked at the succession act for some time because it was being challenged on religious grounds by some realms.
The religious question has been settled as have other outstanding issues and the act is now in effect as of 26 March 2015. All previously excluded catholic claimants (or married to catholics thus losing their place) have been restored to their place in the line of succession including the previously excluded Earl of Ulster who is now no 34 in the line.
LAK; restoring catholic claimants to the line of succession is big. What does this mean for the royal title, specifically being defender of the faith, and the head of the Church of England?
LAK
Thank you. And yes, QEII is the ostrich queen. If Charles is king when Harry has kids I bet he gives them styles.
Wolfpup: I should have been clearer. Only currently excluded catholic claimants to the throne have been restored to the line of succession, BUT the heir has to be CoE as they will have to be the head of CoE.
Earl of St Andrews!!!!
Earl of Ulster is someone else altogether (DoG’s heir) and he’s always been in the line.
Seeing as Beatrice is not a senior royal nor is she supported by the Crown, I don’t care if she vacations her life away. William & Kate are senior royals. Their entire lifestyle is funded by the government and Charles. They don’t work and William has made it perfectly clear he isn’t going to be forced to do anything he doesn’t want to do. Beatrice & Eugenie put themselves out there as available when needed and the Queen used them. But there’s been a change over the past year. I don’t think Bea or Eugenie are being asked to do things because if it’s not W&K or Harry, then it won’t be anyone else. Bea has her charities and her trust fund and she is living her life as she sees fit. No shade from me.
I am also wondering, why it is anyone’s business, what the York sister’s do.
I have said this before. But there is not enough money in the world, to make me believe this is a great way to live. You are bullied daily. Because some talking head is screaming about your lazy ass-ways. Or how ugly you are. It never ends. You are expected to be a human tourist attraction, from the day you are born.
I am curious though. Since it is never mention. The Royal family has other personal income. A substantial income, that does not come from the country/tax payers.
That even if the Royal family decided to walk away from this non-sense. Make the move to be private citizens. They are never going to be poor, not even close to poor. That they have their own millions in the bank. That the Queen… is flat out filthy rich. Huge private land owner.
It is why Diana walked away with a nice piece of change, when that divorce happened. Charles is wealthy in his own right. That the Royal family is not dependent on the tax payer for money. To maintain their 1% life style.
From what I understand a big factor in that wealth is the fact that the Queen’s lands aren’t taxed as other UK citizens would be.
But where do you think the ‘private’ money came from?
The private money came from generations of UK kings and queens. It came from the public who haven’t risen up to toss the monarchy out. Is that her fault that she comes from a wealthy clan? That their wealth came on the backs of the people? Nope. But as the rules stand right now, she isn’t being paid by the state. She has a trust fund that was given to her by her grandmother or great-grandmother.
I agree and it’s not like I’m saying give it back or anything but it is not like her money came from anyone’s hard work or industry/intellect. The royals are not titans of commerce, trade, technology, agriculture or anything else that benefits the infrastructure of nations. They cut ribbons, wear lots of hats and wave as they are driven off in the Bentley.
The Yorks don’t technically owe anyone anything for the randomness of birth but I would be embarassed to go swanning about when there are so many other important and wonderful things one could do.
But she is being supported by the Crown – indirectly, it’s true, but the wealth they accrued at the public’s expense is finding its way to her. And her father tried very hard before the birth of Prince George to push the two York girls as “senior working royals”. It just didn’t work. He clearly wanted a piece of the royal gravy train for them when he realized that Wills, Kate, Harry, and eventually Harry’s bride and their respective children were simply going to shove his two off the train. But he was too late by the time Kate had the ring on her finger, took a couple of international tours, and got pregnant right on schedule. The long game is going to Kate and Wills and Harry and [fill in the blank] and Andrew and the York girls were clever enough to see it and simply get out of the way.
I really hope the royals start turning on each other. OMG, what GREAT gossip! As for B? Egh, who cares. Her lifestyle isn’t funded by the tax payers; she and her sis were famously and publicly kicked off the firm dole — so, if other richie riches want to foot her bills, fine by me.
Kate and Will are entirely different, as they ARE using taxpayer money for their a lot of their lifestyle….
It’s not so much that they shouldn’t live like spoiled socialites but why would you want to? Everyone loves a good vacation or two or eleven but oficially or not, the Yorks owe the UK for generations of privilege, trust fund or not. There’s black and white and then there’s karma.
Thank you!
I agree with you, IMO.
Continuously trying to show up and paint Beatrice as work-shy is not the other red meat. In no way, shape or form will her lack of employment ever, ever remove our critical gaze from Kate & William. First of all, Beatrice is not in the direct line of descent. Secondly, she’s not two — yes 2— 30+ year-old over-privileged layabouts. And, finally, even if it’s half-assed she continues to do charitable work and would perhaps do more if allowed. Now, the last could be all talk but it’s talk IMO that is as well entrenched as W/K ability to dodge what should be their “duties” aka job.
Here is the other thing: in playing dirty pool, and by trying constantly to throw other royals under the bus (Harry & Bea, namely) as distraction, whoever is doing this should be careful. Why? Cause it’s a dangerous game they are playing. Short term win: your clients look better in comparison. Long term loss: the monarchy as it exists today. Once I’ve started looking & assessing my neighbors yard to the right and becoming critical of it and finding fault, there is nothing that stops me from looking to my neighbor on the left to do the same. William and Kate do not add enough value, on their own, to withstand the type of scrutiny they would incur once the “dogs” were unleashed. They don’t have the gravitas for that. William, at best, is a 30-something year old man child playing the games of dress-up and pretend by taking someone else’s job instead of learning his own. And Kate, at best, is Queen WAG–as one journalist dubbed her. How many people and for how long, who have the same levels of access to education and far more practical skills, experience or even depth of knowledge will be willing to support William because he carries the “special” sperm and she the anointed womb? Stop throwing rocks if u live in a glass house.
I know it sounds crazy but there are actually media outlets that live to report this stuff and are not secret agents of William and Kate’s PR machine.
Totally agree. It’s going to backfire. When Harry & Beatrice are no longer around to be tossed under the bus, then what or what will William do to distract the public from his & Kate’s own workshy lives? And I think that day is coming sooner rather than later.
I get tired of the excuses made for Beatrice. She is indirectly and directly subsidized by the Crown. She’d do more charity work if she were allowed? Who’d ever say no to that besides an employer if it were taking up too much on the job time? Oh wait, no worries there. She could be working on charity FULL TIME right now and setting herself up for sainthood. But she isn’t.
This.
But one’s work should be about more than just money, PARTICULARLY if you have the luxury of choosing what you’d like to do. I think everyone would like to be at least a little useful, using your talents or skills for the greater good. Pity this basic lesson hasn’t been taught to these self centered, self indulgent folks. And lastly, I think it’s difficult to have true self esteem and happiness if you are only concerned with your own pleasure.
I agree .The whole essence of the royal family and aristocracy and even the wealthy is that Nobless Oblige..that from this privileged position you give back in return with charity work ,work to improve the lot of the working clas,such as in Victorian times ,libraries or galleries ….the idea of no strings wealth started under Thatcher and has worked its way into the culture to say,why do I have to do anything to show I appreciate my life,health and position in this world?
This!
Ding!
This is no different than a wealthy American socialite who chooses to live off her family’s money, rather than work. Yes, it’s distasteful to those of us not so fortunate, and comes off as entitled. But, since the taxpayers aren’t paying Bea’s way, I cannot really fault her for doing what any other wealthy young person might do. Now, I would also admire her if she showed some gumption and got a job. Look at Zara and all she has accomplished.
I agree, Jaygee, I just admire those with wealth who nevertheless teach their children the value of public service, or using your gifts for the greater good. But there was a study, and often wealth went down the tubes after 3 generations, because of that “entitlement” factor and lack of work ethic in those raised in privilege.
Beatrice has charities and patronages that she works for. She doesn’t just do photo ops for them even if the media rarely cover them. She supports them properly.
This is always going to be an issue long term because people will always focus on her lack of day-to-day job and completely ignore her charity work because that doesn’t receive the media coverage that WHK receives.
Why doesn’t her father make sure she gets publicity for her charitable works? Surely he has some pull with the media?
LadyDi
Surely you jest. The UK press all but despise Andrew. The better question is why doesn’t he hire a competent PR firm to spin the girls. That and stay the hell away from them in public.
You’re right. i didn’t think that through.
This is the system of royalty.
It hasn’t had a true purpose for centuries and has been hanging on mostly because of the love for tradition. Most of the ‘work’ done by the Royals reminds me of the way politicians stop by to ‘work’ at a soup kitchen. Lots of smiles, lots of attention, lots of cameras. It’s great for one day if you can stand it, but if you’re someone who actually works you’ll be tearing out your hair trying to handle the real duties while babysitting an adult through a publicity piece of fluff work they’re still struggling with. Military seems to be a bit better but the commitment isn’t really there and they just ‘leave’ their positions with plenty of work for someone who actually deals with the dirty details.
Can’t really blame them though, if they’re not using public money then it’s up to them what they want to do with their lives. That’s how they were raised.
England having royalty is part of what makes it England..tourists (and that’s big money) come for the history.the difference. Do you think any tourist comes to see a new shiny building or sit at a Starbucks?
I’ve traveled the world, and England was last on my list, along with the Southern states. No excuses here, just no interest.
Actually, the posturing and persona’s, and the snobbery in English society turns me way off. The word “Ferguson” sums up my perception of the south. I believe the south has mimicked England from the days of the earliest colonies, in that respect. Whenever I see an old photo of a black woman holding a white baby, I think of the Queen Mother, and the legacy of “hired” help and “looking good”. The English raped Africa for slaves. I don’t find their history “romantic”, in the least. (I’ll spare you their history of the Middle East).
Wolfpup
I encourage you to visit the south. There are beautiful scenes to watch unfold and even more beautiful stories to read in the faces of the men and women who took a cruel twist of fate and created a rich, living legacy of pride and culture. I encourage you to visit and enjoy the simple pleasures of getting to know people with good hearts and lives tied to the land and one another. No place is perfect but the south is very matriarchal and resonates with a warmth and strength that may surprise you.
By the way, true southerners don’t consider Missouri to be the south. We just don’t 🙂 Besides, I could say that the northeast just reminds me of Bensonhurst or Texas reminds me of Matthew Shepard or California reminds me of Rodney King etc but where would that get us?
Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
@wolfpup,
I’m not really familiar with the south. The little I do know suggests that to some, bloodlines are important. You make a very thought-provoking comparison that certainly piques my interest. Thanks!
I would also like to add that most of the ideas people have about the south stem from antebellum tropes that don’t always represent the contemporary culture that abounds here. Bloodlines are no more or less important than those found in other parts of the country. Good luck getting into certain Dutch enclaves in New York or Back Bay societies in Boston lol. It is a certain way of life and manner of interacting with one another that gives the south its particular mien – no better or worse, just different. And I see nothing wrong with injecting a bit of charm and civility into society, especially these days 🙂
@wolfpup, England took slaves from Africa and Ireland and unfortunately we can’t change it. Don’t let this keep you from going places you could enjoy. History is history and look forward to the future.
I am related to the Queen Mother through Augustine Warner. Elizabeth R. visited the site of her “American ancestors” when she came to Virginia. On my g8 grandfather’s grave, his motto reads, “Every land is home to a brave man”; also, “I bear no ill” (referring to the days he spent in the King’s army against Cromwell, and his subsequent time in Barbados). Afterwards, he returned to Monmouthshire, Wales, sold his lands; sailed to America, and his line had a great part in the funding of the Revolutionary War. Still, I’m not interested in England, perhaps I want to see Wales. I’ve been to Virginia, but there’s a deep shock inside of me concerning slavery. I can’t help it – and I don’t want to be like entitled whites. But I bet that the land in the South is as beautiful as in the movies…
Imo, if I get the chance, I will go South, just because you said simple pleasures, warm hearts, and matriarchal strength.
@boredblonde: The history will always be there from times when England was forming itself and going through many important wars. There is no history being made today by the young batch of royals – only Harry seems to be doing anything truly meaningful that will change the lives of many military and ex-military people for the better. Charles faffs around with ecology and preserving architecture, etc., but at the end of the day they are so removed from the needs of the majority of society that it is at best anachronistic, and at worst a waste of valuable public funds.
I’ve been to England numerous times and have enjoyed the history of the country, as I do with many other countries I visit, but I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to visit because of something the current royal family is doing.
Wolfpup
It is very true 🙂
If one closes ones eyes it is possible to almost feel the arms of our strong mother ancestors holding us close. It is almost possible to hear them sing us to sleep on warm, balmy nights and tell us everything is fine. Throughout our struggles, the south has succeeded because our mothers, sisters and daughters have fought to remind us of what is important – even as the most violent of men amongst us was determined to destroy it. At times this had to do with race and slavery and at times it simply had to do with holding the family together through good and bad times. But lacking the ability to change the past and understanding the dangers of altering it all that is left to do is understand it and appreciate the richness of its legacy.
That’s just beautiful, Imo.
Lots of European nations who deposed their royal families still get the tourism. The tourists don’t actually come to see the members of the family (because they can’t) but the castles and other estates. Which all still remain when you get rid of an insane anachronism like royalty.
The reason that England (as opposed to the UK who ALL pay for the family but get less tourism) gets more tourists than say Greece who deposed their sponges is purely because Americans tend to prefer travelling in English speaking countries.
The benefits to tourism of continuing to pay for these massive leeches are more than offset by the cost to the taxpayer to maintain this nonsense.
The history isn’t going anywhere and neither are the palaces. No one is saying send the royals to the guillotine but why must they be so lavishly supported? They have private wealth horded away while the citizenry struggles to make ends meet. And just what do the royals do that they shouldn’t already be doing for free??
I agree. The time for monarchy is rapidly coming to an end. The money can’t be given back to the people, but if it is given to the senior royals, then they need to give back through their promotion of UK’s business, trade, and charity. That’s the difference I see between the Yorks and the Cambridges. The Yorks aren’t senior royals. They can only do so much and I feel Bea does that. She has her charities she is passionate about, but which we hear very little about.
You make good points here.
Well said to everyone who commented.
No offense at all to the people who requested the story but I often see pieces about how the Royals aren’t doing their duties as they should. But since the time of antiquity the duties of The Royals has always been to throw the metaphorical roses to the poor dirty-faced crowd of paupers and tell them how loved they all are. Of course charity work is appreciated and one can’t deny how wonderful it is for children to meet a Princess to feed their fantasies during times of depression and poverty.
But once you’re done staring into some poor darling child’s eyes and clasping their hands that’s about it, isn’t it? The ones truly helping that child are the ones getting their hands dirty right alongside them working nearly 24 hours everyday. The Royals can’t do that and with technology, gossip columns, and cameras everywhere the work they’re used to doing suddenly looks quite paltry once it’s parsed out and numbered. Since they no longer make decisions on laws they don’t have a ‘day job’ so really…what else is there left to do but see the world and enjoy the luxury you were born into?
Maybe it’s my own bias but I have no interest in Royalty, once you come from an area where the ones in power behave like Kings and Queens and abandon their people’s needs to focus on their own comforts you become bored of the ‘nobility’. Many of those visiting England in awe of the King and Queen would set forth a bloody riot if they had to live under the rules of that government. Someone else said it but the difference a Constitution makes is like the difference between admiring a sunny day from inside and feeling the warm days on your face. Royalty is a system of the past that can be revisited through books and architecture, clinging to it without making effort to change it seems like a waste of time. William and Kate will never be the King and Queen of anyone’s fantasies. Or maybe…they’re more true to history than some like to admit.
I wish I could hug this comment.
You make me wish I didn’t care about the future of the British monarchy.
She’s in between jobs and using her connections with her wealthy friends to go on awesome vacations. Beatrice isn’t even the most scandalous person in her immediate family. Though reading between the lines, it’s giving credence to the theory that the Yorks are out of money.
The part that I find interesting is the tendency around here to raise up the folks that are most frequently compared to Will and Kate. Beatrice and Eugenie seem like nice enough girls (an utter miracle considering who their parents are) but they’re still very liberally mixing in their charity endeavors with the vacations and fun stuff that is typical in that social stratosphere. They’re still working rich girl jobs. It’s awesome that they’re putting in work with their favorite charities because they *want* to, but the stakes are very different for the York girls.
On another note, is it possible that Beatrice is being thrown under the bus to deflect attention not from Will and Kate, but from her father? Andrew could have taken a page out of Charles’s book.
I don’t blame her. As long as she’s paying for the vacations and not tax dollars. What’s the big deal. Who wouldn’t want to go on many vacations if they had the time and money? She has plenty of time in her life to actually “work” as she gets older. Money will probably never be an issue for her. Enjoy life and be grateful for the experiences and opportunities !
I bet giving back feels good too. 🙂
To me, it’s not the fact that she’s on an endless vacation like the Dolittles. It’s the empty, hedonistic lifestyle. If I had their opportunities I would live a life of adventure and exploration around the world. None of them seem to possess an innate curiosity about life- they hit the beach, the snow, party endlessly, and kill defenceless animals for fun . That, and their utter fecklessness are what’s shameful, IMO. Their worlds are, in effect, amazingly narrow, constricted and mind-numbing.
You are so right!!
Think of the things you could do,to improve oneself and perhaps by that to help others .The life they lead seems to be hollow and empty .
Perhaps travel doesn’t always broaden the mind if you live their life!!!!
As long as her boyfriend and friends are paying for it…And as she’s staying in houses that are already there/theirs, meh.
It’s not as if she’s never had a job. Maybe none of her well connected friends have an opening atm.
ETA: Now in a year or two, if she’s still in the same situation, then I’ll raise an eyebrow.
Going forward, I shall be picturing Sixer in the pale blue feathered hat, when she says things like “naff’ and ‘posh’. I think it makes the conversation more colorful.
Given the York’s precarious financial situation I’m surprised the princesses aren’t tearing a page from Zara’s book and trying to jumpstart a brand. Streamlining is a real thing, ladies. You will always live well but if you want your great grandchildren to afford those ski trips to Gstaad you’d better get to work.
this is a hatchet job, and i’m surprised you joined in.
It sounds like she’s vacationing on private dime, so I don’t see why anyone should be upset. The poor girl has to go through life homely and the daughter of total screwups and slobs. Let her have her Swiss Alps.
But she isn’t homely. This rationale is sad.
It was a joke. Don’t be so humorless.
Oh in that case I apologize. People are often quite cruel about the Yorks’ appearance. That and it is often difficult to get context non-verbally.
When she vacations, everyone seems to know. Being part of the royal family, some assume she’s using taxpayers $. If she pays herself, that’s fine. She always looks shocked the way her huge eyes bulge out of her face. Her mouth looks overstuffed with teeth. Not the cutest girl, but there’s worse out there
That’s not very kind. She has no control over genetics, and in all likelihood she may suffer from thyroid eye disease, which causes the eyes to proptose.
Thing is would she be vacationing on private money (and a lot of it other private money) if she wasn’t who she is? Probably not.
^Not saying bea doesn’t like the luxury life, who wouldn’t? She seems to ardor it, she loves holidays. However, two of these holidays happened in 2014. Not that it makes much difference, she vacations a lot . I can see why they mushed it together since it was close to january? It kinds of reminds when the press and the monarchy had the agenda to make kate seem like a hard working royal in 2012, they combined two years worth of events. Expect now the press is trying to make bea seem like a holiday addict to fit whatever agenda they have. They probably aren’t too far off from the truth though, bea makes it easy for them to label her as such because she lives a luxury filled life. As for the recent easter holiday, I don’t buy it, for now. First off the photo they used is back in 2012, from what I’ve seen could be wrong there could be more photos. The original article reporting this is the the sun, which isn’t known to be reliable, least in my book. Not saying she’s not floating to one vacation to another, just pointing things out
Interestingly enough on other news of Bea, the telegraph has reported:
Beatrice recently completed a finance course at a university in San Francisco and has said she is keen to build on her time working with the London investment firm Cabot Square Capital, where she spent a year in 2012
Bea doesn’t seem like a bad person she does a lot of good charity work which the press ignores -_-
I’m not going to hold Beatrice to the same scrutiny as I do W&K.
Like the article said, she’s not beholden to taxpayer money. Like LAK said upthread, the BRF has their own money which I take it to mean that it’s not currently gotten from taxpayer money but from saved, ‘older’ money or from prior investments. Yes, I know that it’s origin may have been from the public at one time in the past, but it’s not now.
She’s not on the Sovereign list or ‘payroll.’ Charles took her RP guards away and he doesn’t want her and her sister to be part of the slimmed down BRF plan he’s got going. For all he cares, the sisters could have been styled “Lady” like his other niece Louise or nothing at all like Zara. For him, their being titled Princesses means nothing, imo.
On the other hand….. W&K are getting funding and paid employees off of current taxpayer’s money on top of ‘saved,’ ‘old’ money. Their two main residences are renovated and decorated with current tax money. So are their RPGs and because they have been kept on the Sovereign list, they’re getting ‘paychecks.’ I don’t know how much of their other expenses are paid by taxpayers. But remember that 8,000 pound joyride he’s refusing to pay for on the copter ride to UK’s version of the NSA? It was described as a private trip until it seemed like William wasn’t about to pay for it. Anyhoo.
If I were rich, I wouldn’t go find a 9-5 job. But I’m much older than Beatrice. I think it would be good for her character and personality to have a job
Argh. Two double posts but deleted the wrong one. 🙁
LAK, is it normal for the royal family to leave everything to great-grandchildren? Will George inherit the Queen’s wealth, instead of his parents?. It seems strange to me that children and grandchildren wouldn’t benefit most.
I believe its a tax dodge.
Perfectly normal. They always skip a generation when setting up trusts. In as much as Andrew, Anne and Edward aren’t as wealthy as Charles, they have (had) royal family trusts set up for them from previous generations.
The same thing was done for the next generation of WHBEJL whose money would have come from previous generations and topped up by QM.
WH also have the top up of Diana’s money, so don’t feel bad for any of these people.
PGtips + his siblings, Savannah and Isla Philips will have trusts set up for them, if they haven’t done so already.
Why would George need a private trust when he will be King?
B: it will be a very long time before he can enjoy the wealth that comes with King or POW positions.
That money belongs to the person holding that position ONLY. If they choose to dish it out to others, that’s on them – see William’s income from Charles.
if I was a princess I would not work, I would be on vacation always and I would not care about the minion tax payers.
That worked out well for Andrew.
She and her sister may not be on the civil list but she sure takes advantage of the Royal perks along with layabout Fergie. They both are certified members of the layabout club and they make W&K look like workaholics.
Workaholics? Really????!! Thanks for the laugh.
I thought that Bea and her sister would gladly take on royal duties, appearances and such, and their father wants that, but Charles has restricted them, in favor of a smaller number of working royals. If they’re not allowed, they may as well enjoy what perks life gave them, regardless.
It’s time the monarchy was abolished. They are all a bunch of freeloaders that make guest appearances and receive exorbitant amounts of money from taxpayers for showing their horse faces.
Oh my..she sure got the short end of the stick in the looks department.
Yes, well, she can’t help that but she CAN stop doing herself the disservice of wearing those horrible little hats!
I’ve visited & traveled in the UK & find some of the architectural & historical sites fascinating. The long-gone royals from times past were often interesting, but there’s nothing about the current batch that interests me. They have no real power or influence on the world stage. To me, they’re just celebs who excel in consuming lavishly while having no particular relevance except to provide entertainment, participate in parades, promote their designated hobbies, and pose as a symbol for their island nation.
Is there any great intellect or talent among the current crop? Nothing visible. Maybe Edward has literary talent? He tried acting for a while. Anne sits a good horse. Many families have black sheep, & here that’s Andy, mama’s favorite, which might say something about her.
Ignore the royals & visit other parts of the country. Do go to the V&A & the Tate. Go to the British Museum, theater. Take the tube. admire buildings hundreds of years old. Oxford is lovely. See Holyrood in Scotland is delightful. The UK is well worth visiting.
According to the DM, Beatrice has taken a job in NY with a finance company. Guess they’ll reveal the name soon.
Lots of people complaining that Bea and Her sis aren’t being “allowed” to be full time working royals – they wouldn’t have done it for free, they would have to go on the civil list and add to the burdens of the british taxpayer. Andrew wanted them to be full time working royals for the money and status and bowing and scraping and that’s all, not to help their country.
Plus, BOTH of their parents have tried to use their status and connections as a member of the royal family to obtain pecuniary advantage in ways that are utterly distasteful and morally if not legally wrong. The best thing the monarchy could do is cut them loose like charles intends.
Andrew and his ex and kids are not penniless, (certainly didn’t start out that way) they are greedy entitled idiots who will sell their connections to make more money from the most dodgiest of people.
People need to stop alleging that they are being thrown under the bus to distract from W&K – no throwing under the bus needed, they manage to make themselves look bad all on their own just like W&K
Also, the lionising and romantising of Harry surprises me, ultimately, he isn’t any different from the rest of the family just because people fancy him they give him a pass.
I do think that Bea and her sister aren’t taken seriously at all by the Royal family or the British public. Their mother was an embarrasment to the Queen and Prince Charles is distancing himself from Prince Andrew for his shady dealings so I believe that although they seem like good girls on the whole – and it is said that Prince Andrew is the Queen’s favorite…my impression is that they are spoiled by the Queen and their parents privately, yet publicly they are underutilized and downplayed because they are to be honest two of the goofiest looking women in the entire Royal family and don’t seem like they can even wear a hat properly much less any responsiblilities. They are probably lovable to the family but just very indulged and they look like they are deer in headlights most of the time. Both their parents are the shadiest of the Royal family but again favored by the Queen. I think they are hoping they marry well and settle down. I am afraid no one expects much else from them. It does seem like in this day and age they should have to “serve” or “play a role” and not jet set with their rich friends. It does seem that Kate Middleton does do her fair share of public appearances and royal work…I for one am kind of confused about why she is considered to be so lazy. Perhaps I don’t follow it well enough but I think she has good values and will do the right thing. The daughters of Sarah and Andrew seem to be the least popular in the family..