Prince Andrew & Prince Charles are still fighting over the York princesses


Ever since Kate Middleton married Prince William in 2011, there’s been a steady stream of gossip/news about Prince Charles’ plan to “streamline the monarchy” so that there would only be a handful of “full-time royals.” Charles plan – which is already being put into action – is a series of demotions for his siblings and their children. Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex are said to be miffed about it but they’re not going to put up much of a fight. The Princess Royal never gave a sh-t either way, she’s just going to work and do her thing. But the Duke of York is said to be royally pissed, mostly because he believes his daughters should be full-time working royals, with all of the protection and privilege that comes with that. Charles disagrees. I tend to believe that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge don’t want Beatrice and Eugenie to be full-timers either, but who knows? In any case, the Express has a lengthy story about how Andrew and Charles keep fighting about it and now the Queen is in the middle of it.

How this current “war” started: 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. It demanded that his daughters, who are seventh and eighth in line to the throne, be given better accommodation at Kensington Palace instead of having to put up with “small” apartments at St James’s Palace.

Andrew did write the letter himself: A source said: “Amanda originally drafted the letter and couched it in very reasonable terms, but the Duke did not think it made his case strongly enough so tore it up and put pen to paper himself. He believes his daughters are already being overshadowed by William, Kate and Harry and the situation will get worse as Prince George and Princess Charlotte get older.” He has long argued that as the only ‘blood princesses’ in the family, Beatrice and Eugenie deserve proper royal roles like their cousins, along with the same standard of accommodation at Kensington Palace. “He fears that they will be totally sidelined when the Queen dies.”

How the Queen reacted: Her Majesty was apparently so stunned by the letter that she felt unable to reply and handed it to her private secretary Christopher Geidt to deal with. He raised the matter directly with Charles, who suggested someone in Government should break it to his younger brother that while he will continue to play a formal role in the Royal Family in the future, his daughters will not.

Charles just wants to save money: “The Prince of Wales is already conscious that he divides opinion more than his mother. The last thing he wants is additional criticism by keeping peripheral royals on the public payroll.”

[From The Express]

There are a few more interesting details in the Express’s story, like Sophie and Edward being really irritated by Charles but not saying anything, and Beatrice looking for ways to make herself useful in between holidays. There’s also the belief that Eugenie will likely announce her engagement any day now, and she will want a big royal wedding and babies very soon. I understand Andrew’s point about blood princesses and wanting the best for his daughters, and I even think that Beatrice and Eugenie should be given more to do, especially with William and Kate’s workshy ways. But I also think Charles is right to be conscious of the bottom line. That being said, Charles’ argument for a streamlined monarchy is constantly undercut by William and Kate’s laziness. Some very, very interesting sh-t it going to go down when it is finally Charles’ time to be king.



Photos courtesy of WENN, PCN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

248 Responses to “Prince Andrew & Prince Charles are still fighting over the York princesses”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lena says:

    If he demotes his siblings and their children logically this means that one day Harry and Charlotte and their possible future children should be demoted as well. Just something to keep in mind.

    • Whatabout says:

      Yeap! But Won’t work and Kan’t work need Harry. He is so well liked and is much more willing to work than them. But who knows about his future children.

      • Natalie S says:

        Anyone who marries Harry is going to have to juggle being required to work while receiving only a fraction of protection from the press, knowing their children will be famous and also less protected, and manage it all on a lower income while receiving more criticism because they are not the heirs. I know Harry is trying is trying to support his brother but it seems like a losing proposition for him and his future partner.

      • Lorelai says:

        Natalie ITA and I feel incredibly sorry for Harry. It’s not as if I don’t think he could “find” a bride (there are plenty of us right here on CB who would jump at the chance!), but I feel that any smart woman who has been paying even a little bit of attention won’t want to go anywhere near the BRF. And who could blame them?

        Harry’s future wife will probably start off with disdain (if not active sabotage…) from Kate on day one.

      • Natalie S says:

        Lorelai, I hope whomever she is, she has private wealth and a strongly supportive network of friends and family. Best case, Harry moves out of Kensington Palace, his future wife and kids stay private citizens and do private charity work, and support themselves using her fortune and whatever private funds Charles has laid aside for Harry, and Harry is the only one who does official royal work instead of including his future family.

    • Megan says:

      Andrew can complain all he likes, Charles is not going to change his mind.

      • mbh12 says:

        Charles holds onto things, concepts, revenge, personal slights for centuries it seems. He believes revenge is a dish best served Cold, according to some biographers and authors.
        No way he is going to change his mind. I think he has plans for Andrew,
        and for The Middletons too. People believe he has plans in place for several around and in the Royal Family and he will have his way IF he can.

        I think if the Monarchy is expecting to survive with the useless Kate and lightweight Prince William, it won’t make it. Prince Harry will be needed. I believe Harry’s wife will be needed, and some of the other members of the Royal Family , The Wessex’s who work hard and will be older but still do work a lot even now over 500 Royal duties a year, The Yorks may be needed every now and then but if Prince Charles doesn’t want that, Andrew will have no choice but to accept it. . William just doesn’t seem to grasp what it takes to be a Monarch imo, and neither does lightweight Kate.

      • Lorelai says:

        @MBH12, I agree, but in this case I think Charles is cutting off his nose to spite his face. And either he doesn’t realize it yet, or he does, but he’s gone this far and can’t back down now.

        Also, please dish on the “plans” you think he has for the Middletons! 🙂

      • Kitty says:

        @mbh12, I agree. Harry will be needed

      • ladysussex says:

        It’s not even “Charles”, it’s the nature of primogeniture. It’s the way the BRF has always been, except now since the press is exceedingly critical of them they have a much tighter budget than generations past. It’s why Charles’ male siblings have actual jobs (As did sister Anne’s husbands) and work for a living, despite being provided with housing. Princess Margaret’s husband also had a profession.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Andrew and Edward don’t have “actual jobs” nor are they “provided” housing. They both pay large rents on their Crown Estate properties at Windsor. Both of their wives were/are full-time working royals. Anne’s husband was never given a title and was never a working royal.

        Cutting back the BRF only to Charles’s line is a new concept, and one I think he hasn’t thought through. He should put B&E on the lists, retire the three eldest royals, and retire Andrew, Edward, and Sophie in the next 10 years. In future years, they can retire B&E and Harry’s kids will never be working royals.

      • bluhare says:

        nas, Andrew isn’t married, and his wife was only a working royal for a few years. A&E pay rent on their Crown Estate properties but I’ll bet you my life savings that they do not pay large rents. In fact I have read Sophie and Edward pay a low amount for Bagshot Hall. And let’s not forget Andrew getting more than asking price for Sunningwhatever that the Queen bought them as a wedding present.

        Cutting back the line to the monarch’s direct line isn’t new; it’s been done since the dawn of time. I don’t know why Andrew Edward and Sophie should be retired in the next 10 years if they don’t want to — and they won’t want to if they get money.

        This whole thing is so snobby. Blood princesses. Whatever. They’re two women who were born into extraordinary privilege and their father is going to bat so they can keep it all and not have to live on their paltry trust funds. I feel so sorry for them.

      • Sarah says:

        The problem is that the streamlined royal family has two members who don’t want to work. Period. So that means a lot fewer appearances once the Queen passes on and Charles is king.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I was pointing out that ladysussex was inaccurate with the idea that Andrew and Edward have “actual jobs” because they don’t. But when married (Andrew isn’t, Edward is) their wives were working royals not working outside jobs either.

        Andrew paid several million for the rent on Royal Lodge up front (same as Ogilvy and Thatched Cottage) and paid 7+million in renovations himself. Edward paid half the renovations on Bagshot, Crown Estate paid half. Edward and Sophie pay 90,000 million pounds a year in rent. Not sure if that is what they pay when they are also renting out half of it to a business, or if that is the overall cost. That lease is 50 years and subject to re-evaluation every 15 years.

    • Lindsay says:

      But that is the way it has always worked. We hear about the monarach’s children and grandchildren so yes when the time comes Harry and Charlotte’s respective children will also pruned down. Harry will either be the son of the king or the brother of the king (possibly uncle but they aren’t going to shut him out in old age). Charlotte will be the daughter of a king or sister of a king so she will also still be in the immediate family.

      Those two will be nieces of the king and cousins of the king. The Queen has nieces, nephews, and cousins that don’t play a major role and aren’t full time royals. The ones that do aren’t princesses and living the same lifestyle has the Queen and her family. They also don’t make balcony appearances.

      Also why would Andrew and Sophie care? Their roles are safe and they elected not to give their children the royal styling. That indicates that like Anne they already weren’t planning on their kids growing up to be full time royals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are three of the Queen’s cousins (plus one’s spouse) who are full-time working royals. Until people figured it out, several of them were given free or vastly subsidized housing.

    • MyHiddles says:

      I think the best way to settle this is to put the extended royals on a cafeteria plan. Pay them a set amount for an engagement and they can decided how much of that to spend on wardrobe, etc. That way they are only paid for the work they do. I can’t imagine there would be much objection to that.

    • Prairiegirl says:

      Because OF COURSE this will happen, unless someone dies that’s how the line of succession WORKS. Oh my God how is the Duke of York just figuring this out NOW? Is he the entitled-middle-aged-white-man-Trump-voter of the Royal Family?? LMFAO.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Because this isn’t how it has worked in the BRF in the past. Up until a few years ago, it was assumed by many that B&E would be working royals. It is only in recent years that this new plan has come out.

        Right now there are 14 working royals. It was logical to assume for years B&E would be working, right along side William, Harry, and spouses.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Yes it seems so. I can’t believe this is still being debated by Andrew? I thought it was all done and dusted a few years ago when B and E got taken off the royal protection rolls and got post-university jobs–that they were not going to be part of the sovereign grant/working royals/etc..

        B and E are both probably very nice young women who could represent the monarchy in a decent way given the chance, but especially in light of how Edward’s kids and Anne’s kids are situated, it is totally reasonable for Charles et al to shove them off to the periphery, to be blunt.

        This is not even taking into account the horrifying embarrassments that Andrew and Fergie are and how very shady they have been for years.

        For those talking about Harry, yes he is a lovable superstar now but actually so was Andy 30 years ago! Look how the tables turn.

      • Kitty says:

        @Tourmaline, the tables won’t turn for Harry. Count on it.

  2. Alix says:

    Charles’ streamlined monarchy will end up being him, Camilla, and Harry, since the Cambridges still won’t lift a finger. Many, many charities in the UK depend on the patronage of royal-family members and quite frankly, three people alone won’t be able to handle the job. Surely there’s room for the York sisters to do their bit. Couldn’t they even be half-time working royals? And the idea that the hard-working Sophie should be shunted aside — bad, bad move.

    • Onerous says:

      I wondered about this, as well. Under the Queen, there are many satellite royals who are working many functions each year. But the payoff must not be worth the payout for them?

    • Betsy says:

      This. I don’t see Willie staying the course as a working royal.

    • bettyrose says:

      Serious question, though, does Charles have any cousins who are working royals? Would it be rare for the ruling monarch (in this case, William) to have cousins and an aunt by marriage as part of the inner circle of working royals? I guess even if that is rare, William won’t be the monarch for several decades, if ever.

      • notasugarhere says:

        HM’s cousins Princess Alexandra, Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester and his wife are all working royals.

      • LAK says:

        The only working royal cousins are the Queen’s cousins, the Kents, the Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra.

        Their children do not carry out duties.

        I suppose in her day, HM truly needed the cousins’ help because it was only Margaret and her plus her mother’s generation of royals.

        Charles pushing everyone out is cutting to the bone because there are no royal cousins in his generation though there are 3 siblings ( + sophie) and 4 extra hands in the next generation.

    • Chinoiserie says:

      And doesn’t Camilla have some health issues? Not that they are big deal now but I feel she id not working at the Queens age.

    • sherry says:

      Question for those who have more knowledge about this than I do – Isn’t this more than just giving Andrew’s daughters’ a salary and bigger apartments? Aren’t there other monetary expenses that go along with that such as security, remodeling expenses for their apartments, staff (driver, cooks, maids, butlers, personal assistants, secretary), wardrobe (can’t do those royal duties in rags), etc.

      If so, then it’s not just giving them $250,000 and an apartment at KP, it’s everything that goes with being “working royal princesses” and that adds up, especially if they both are working at that job for the next 60+ years. And what if Edward and Sophie decide that if Andrew’s kids get those kind of bennies, then why aren’t their kids? Then you’ve got Zara and Peter who should be entitled to the same.

      Andrew is asking for privileges for his children that his siblings are not and that is where Charles holds the upper hand.

      Why are Andrew’s daughters’ more deserving than the others?

      • Natalie S says:

        I agree, Sherry. Beatrice and Eugenie have done charity work and they can continue to do so as private citizens. There’s no need for the state to give them an income and bigger homes. In addition I’m sure Elizabeth has put aside a hefty inheritance for her favorite son, Andrew. This seems like an effort to keep Andrew’s kids and future grandkids from being pushed off the gravy train.

    • Lorelai says:

      Alix, I agree on all counts.

      For the Brits here on CB (apologies in advance if this is an incredibly ignorant question!): is there any way that the Queen could have already “handled” much of this by setting out very specific terms and conditions in writing to be enforced upon her death? Or is everything up to Charles once she’s gone, full stop?

      • LAK says:

        She can make her wishes known, but Charles doesn’t have to follow through.

      • Lorelai says:

        Thank you, LAK!

        *I have no idea why this comment appeared here; it was supposed to be in response to your explaining my Counsellors question.

  3. Erinn says:

    Why… why would they be surprised by any of this?

    With royalty – it’s always been about the first born/heir. The other children are never seen as JUST AS important as the one who’s set up to take over. Why they hell would anyone be surprised that Eugenie and Beatrice are ‘overshadowed’ by the boys and Kate?

    It’s kind of like “well no shit”. You don’t have people from other countries saying “Oh I can’t wait for Eugenie to come and visit” the way that people are obsessed with Will and Kate. I don’t think they’re worth any obsession, to be fair- but it’s not surprising to me that the others get over shadowed.

    • paolanqar says:

      I totally agree. Also, the princesses are allergic to work and wouldn’t be able to keep up with any of the royal duties.
      It seems to me like the only thing they can do is get a paycheck from Grandma and go on endless holidays.
      Their parents are both an embarrassment, both freeloaders scroungers who either married rich or were born rich without doing anything with their privileged life.

      • LAK says:

        Since when are the girls allergic to work?

        Eugenie has a full time job. She’s been in continuous employment since she graduated from uni.

        Beatrice has held a series of internships over the past 5yrs.

        In between that, they’ve undertaken charity work and have patronages between them that they actively patron.

        Occasionally co-host with HM or their father at BP receptions, and sometimes represent the crown on their own as Eugenie did last week.

        They aren’t hiding away from the public inspite of the media orchestrated hate campaign against them since they were teens.

      • paolanqar says:

        I am sorry LAk but they spend more time on holiday than at work.
        none of us would be able to get away with that amount of holidays in a month, let alone in a year.

      • Cee says:

        @paolanqar you’re not a princess or a member of an influential family. Beatrice does jet set, and internships in 5 years is bad, IMHO. But Eugenie DOES work, on top of their individual/joint charity work and patronages. Just because you do not see it as much as Kate’s 2 monthly engagements does not mean they do not happen. The press only reports on them negatively and bypass all the positive they actually do.

        Eugenie got a uni degree, works in a related field and her connections make her an asset to her employers. Beatrice needs to stick to a career and keep a low profile, though.

      • notasugarhere says:

        paolanqar you’ve fallen for the stories spun by the press. Both of them have jobs or internships, Beatrice’s vacations were weekend trips including weddings and funerals, etc.

      • LAK says:

        Paolanqar: No they do not. That story was and remains BS.

        The lies in it are easily proven, but i guess you can’t be bothered to go deeper.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Of course Eugenie does have a job in the auction field currently, however the Express article does quote a source basically saying or at least strongly hinting that she does not want to carry on that career. Who knows where the truth lies, but I wouldn’t be surprised that even if Eugenie’s work history isn’t as checkered as Beatrice’s that they both would rather be “full time royals” whatever that means (nod to Workshy Will).

        The Royal Reporter twitter guy Richard did tweet last week that Eugenie pulled out of the Olympic reception at BP at the last minute and that aides would not say why. Maybe because of this dramz?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think Eugenie’s own words, from the interview with her mentor, show that she’s committed to the art field for the long run. Whether this will be doing lead-and-trend following for an auction house as she does now, or working/running a small gallery herself in the future. I think she’ll be attached to it for awhile.

      • SilverUnicorn says:

        They’re quite hardworking, contrarily to the bad press they have received (I guess from the Laziddletons….). Beatrice has gone wild for longer but she seems to have fallen in line after a while. Eugenie is smart, focussed, friendly and lovely in person, I met her a few years ago.

      • bluhare says:

        Beatrice has quit her last internship to focus on some sort of entrepreneurial enterprise. I haven’t seen much of it.

        I think both sides have fair points. I think Eugenie has had more staying power at her job, but looks like she’ll give is up for motherhood when she gets married. Beatrice can’t figure out what to do, and Andrew is still miffed that no one gives a damn about him or the rest of his branch. All you have to do is look at his face. Look how petulant and unhappy he looks, and this from someone with just about all the advantages mummy can buy.

        But I do think Charles is on the right track. The only problem with his thinking is he needs his children to actually get out and do their jobs to make it work.

      • Kori says:

        I wouldn’t say they’re lies, I’d say exaggerations. The girls, at least Beatrice, do take a lot of vacations. Even Eugenie is ‘off’ way more than a regular job. It’s not that difficult to track what they’re doing, or not doing. BUT I don’t think they are workshy. I think this issue between Charles and Andrew has left them in a bit of limbo. It’s always been a tricky proposition for the members of the BRF to get a ‘real job’. The military has been the exception but even there, with Andrew and Harry in recent years, they were on leave more than the average soldier/sailor. But in the private sector it’s more difficult–Sophie found that out early on and she hadn’t even married in yet. We can see it with Fergie. There are people that want someone just for the name and connections–that doesn’t necessarily make for the most satisfying job. And probably it’s known up front that it won’t be long-standing because they’re really hired for the name and not the qualifications. None of the Queen’s royal cousins (ie with an HRH) worked in the private sector–it’s only been the ones like Sarah Chatto, David Linley and now the Phillips children. No Prince of Princesses there. But they do more than a lot of the nobility circle they run in. Very few of them seem to hold down real jobs–they may lend their name to something but it’s like Kate working at Jigsaw. It’s a time killer until they marry. And simultaneously you have their Dad almost holding them back waiting to see if he can ‘get them in’ to the working royals circle. Eugenie and Beatrice seem like nice girls , with a good ability with the public and they like charity work. Just because they’re aren’t the hardest workers at their jobs right now doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be in the royal family–that’s not a regular job either. But I think they would eagerly take on some of the patronages and day-to-day duties that W&K don’t seem to want to and that Harry doesn’t because he’s got a laser focus on the ones he is involved with–though I think his responsibilities will increase every year. But let the girls have a whack at it. They don’t need all the fripperies that W&K get–Anne certainly isn’t rolling in a clothing allowance, etc…Nor are the Wessexes. I doubt it would cost the monarchy *that* much to add them to the payroll, especially as the older generation is stepping back due to age and health issues. Even if they aren’t full-timers like Anne, they could still be there on a smaller level. (I doubt anyone will touch Anne or even Philip at his advanced age for sheer longevity and visibility)

    • Green Girl says:

      MTE. They are getting pushed further and further down the succession line. If/when Harry gets married and starts having kids, they’ll be pushed away even more!

    • Kitty says:

      Well people are obsessed with Harry too.

    • notasugarhere says:

      In the BRF, it hasn’t been first born and main line. That is the way it is done increasingly in continental European houses, but not in the BRF. All of HM’s children are working royals. HM’s cousins Princess Alexandra, Duke of Gloucester, his wife the Duchess of Gloucester, and the Duke of Kent are working royals. They do the meat-and-potatoes work that W&K refuse to do.

      Over 3000 engagements a year are going to be handled by just six people? Two of them who refuse to work? Given the rising unpopularity of the the BRF, they cannot decrease that engagement number and will need to increase it.

      It was perfectly reasonable to think Beatrice and Eugenie would be working royals when the elderly cousins retired. Charles’s rumored plan didn’t come along until a few years ago. While they’re trying, and sometimes failing, I think Beatrice and Eugenie are moving forward and getting on with things. It is their ever-ridiculous father who is stirring the pot, if indeed this isn’t all just a big rumor to distract from things LAK mentioned.

      Zara and Peter live rent-free on their mother’s estate, complete with taxpayer-funded security for the whole property. That estate was fixed up with Crown Estate money, but they’ll inherit it and all the benefits of those taxpayer-funded upgrades. They mostly keep a low profile so they get bashed less and people forget that Anne is supporting them sideways. Are many of Gatcombes costs covered by Sovereign Grant monies to Anne? Then Zara and Peter are reaping the benefit.

      Beatrice and Eugenie are also legally tied by the Counsellors of State situation. They are required to live in the UK to serve in that capacity. Given their ages and the ages of W&K’s kids, Beatrice and Eugenie may be required to fill that role for years. They aren’t allowed to be working royals, but they are not completely free to live how or where they’d want.

      • Cee says:

        I never understood why people consider Peter and Zara to not benefit from their maternal family’s position but you’ve stated it quite simply. They got the better deal – free to do what they want with monetary support for life.

        If William and Kate were workhorses then this idea to streamline the Royal House would not be so ridiculous. But they work very little and their children will follow in their steps. Charles and Camilla are in no way young. To shut out young royals willing to help is petty and stupid.

      • Lorelai says:

        @NOTA, could you explain what the “Counsellors of State” situation is? I’m not familiar with it.

        Agree with the rest of your points.

        ETA: I realize I could google it and I’m not trying to make you do the heavy lifting! But I know that you will explain it better and how it is relevant to this article.:)

      • Lorelai says:

        @Cee, it seems like people are blinded by the fact that they don’t have titles. Which is completely irrelevant in this discussion because as others pointed out, they still get *all* of the benefits, including taxpayer-funded housing and security.

        It’s like people hear that Anne chose not to style them with titles and they think “they must be so normal, just like us!” Nope.

      • Desi says:

        Notasugar, you stated it perfectly. All those engagements performed by just a handful of people, two of whom don’t seem particularly enthusiastic about the small bit they do now? How exactly does he think that will work? Is this some sort of power play on his part?

      • LAK says:

        Lorelai: Councillors of State are senior royals that the monarch can delegate functions and duties when she’s unable or unavailable.

        These range from state dinners, representation of the crown eg Eugenie at that anti-slavery service last week, receive diplomatic credentials, attend privy council meetings and in extremis sign state documentrion.

        At present, Charles, WK, Andrew and Philip are councillors. I didn’t know that B and E had been added to the list. However, given the ages of G and C, not to mention HM and Philip, they will most likely be made councillors when Charles and William are King.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks, LAK. I didn’t mean they are now, but likely will be in the future. From the horrible newly-designed official website it looks like it has changed recently.

        “Counsellors of State are appointed from among the following: The Duke of Edinburgh and the four adults next in succession (provided they have reached the age of 21). The current Counsellors of State are currently The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry and The Duke of York.”

        Given Andrew’s age and the age of W&K’s kids (plus the general reluctance of that branch to do anything except take take take), I think B&E will end up as Counsellors for a decade or more.

    • HappyMom says:

      Actually in the past the other royal relatives did have patronages and live at Kensington Palace. The Queen’s first cousins did have “jobs” for the Firm. But I think Charles has a point. Princess Anne refused titles for her kids, and they have their own careers. Prince Edward’s children are a Viscount and a Lady-but not Prince or Princess-and I would assume they’ll have to go to university and have careers in due time.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As explained, titles do not go through the female line. If Anne’s kids were going to get titles, her husband would have had to be offered and accept a title. When/if Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, the kids’ titles will change. Just as C will probably become Princess Royal years from now, her kids will not have titles either.

      • Cee says:

        So a woman can now not be displaced in the Succession but can still not pass her titles to her children? So for Charlotte’s children to get royal titles* she would have to be her father’s heiress and not George? Compared to other European monarchies the BRF is really outdated (excepting Monaco and Liechestein)

        *I’m ignoring the possibility of her husband either having a title or getting one.

      • LAK says:

        Cee: only the monarch can bypass the female barrier to inheritance.

        HM’s father had to write letters patent that allowed her children to inherit the HRH princ(ess) style even though it should have been theirs by right and birth.

      • HappyMom says:

        @notsugarhere-right, but in the past the Queen’s cousins (her father’s brothers all had children that were designated as Princes/Princesses or Royal Dukes) had titles and positions of working for the Firm. I get why Charles wants it streamlined, but it has not always been this way.

      • notasugarhere says:

        happymom, no it hasn’t been this way and that is what Charles is trying to change. But again, the ones with royals titles descended from males not females, which is why they had the titles.

  4. Kitty says:

    Off topic here but I was reading the DM and the reason why Harry who is 5th is still very important to the monarchy is because he, Wiliam and Kate are going to be the ones to take the monarchy forward after The Queen and Charles (but really I think it’s only Harry who will do that) and Harry is an asset and very popular. I do hope once he has kids that they will be Prince/Princess even if The Queen is alive. He is way too popular. Also Harry is not in the same position as Andrews and I really hate he comparison.

    • hey-ya says:

      …everything you say about Harry was once said about a young Prince Andrew…imagine that…btw it was HM herself who resurected all this nonsense about ‘blood princesses’…such a stirer…

      • Kitty says:

        @ Hey-ya, I doubt it was said about young Andrew. I think you are forgetting that Harry is Diana’s son one of the most popular Royal ever. Harry is different to the point people rather him be King and not William.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kitty, Harry is popular here. He’s popular in parts of the fandom. He is not popular to lots of people in the UK. They think his military service was fake, they think he’s not Charles’s son, he’s a wastrel who doesn’t work, etc.

        Harry has been painted as the evil spare for years. He cannot pretend that his future is golden, because public opinion turns on a dime. Especially when his brother’s PR deliberately turns it.

      • Kitty says:

        @notasugarhere, I disagree. Harry is popular and more so when he is overseas on official duties. Watch his Caribbean tour. It will be a success more than William and Kate’s Canadian tour. We all don’t know what the future holds but I think its bright for Harry. He’s more popular than his brother.

      • Angel says:

        Exactly, about the blood princesses stuff. I completely disagree with the Queen’s decision that Kate and Camilla have to curtsy when they are not with thier husbands to blood princesses. The Queen have made them in to, basically, morganic marriages, which I understood to be unconstitutional.

      • Natalie S says:

        I think William is going to be this generation’s Andrew: the popular son who overindulged, became self-important, and squandered his potential.

      • Lorelai says:

        Natalie, I’d say he’s already there.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m not saying Harry isn’t more popular than William, but it remains in the small small world of royal watchers and People magazine stories. In the real world, he is often portrayed and seen as a scrounger, a bastard, and someone who needs to go earn a living.

        It is the real world in which he will be judged as extraneous and potentially removed from the Sovereign Grant. He needs to recognize that he needs to put things in place for a non-royal future, based on his brother’s temperament and the likelihood of the monarchy being removed or drastically reduced.

      • Lorelai says:

        Kitty, Hey-Ya is correct. Most of the accolades that Harry received WERE once used to describe Andrew, as well.

        It’s hard for us to imagine that now, but it’s true.

      • Kitty says:

        @nota, I think you are wrong. I don’t here that in the “real world”. I agree with @Natalie that William is this generation Andrew.

      • tigerlily says:

        Responding to Kitty re: Prince Andrew was once a popular young prince. He WAS, absolutely. I am 57 and OMG….in the 1970’s Andrew was the golden prince. When the Commonwealth Games were held in Edmonton, Canada in 1978 he came with the Queen, Philip and Charles and he was extremely popular and thought to be less stuffy and more “modern”. Girls went nuts over him. But….he was and is a spoiled boy. I would say that Harry’s saving Grace is that he does not appear to be spoiled and entitled in the same ways that Andrew was and is.

      • Kitty says:

        @tigerlily, you see they are 2 different people.

      • notasugarhere says:

        kitty, doesn’t matter if they are different people. They are both the spare, to be held up then beaten down to make the heir look good. Harry isn’t loved outside of the royal fandom, in the real world he is often despised and attacked. A couple of fun tours will not change that in the minds of the majority of taxpayers. He will always be the one scapegoated no matter how bad W&K are.

      • Kitty says:

        @nota, I really do not know what you are talking about. He isn’t outside the royal fandom attacked or despised.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kitty you need to go read outside the royal fandom. Read anything from the Republican side of things. Read any comments on any Harry article on the ugly DailyMail. He is attacked constantly, he is not liked, he is still considered a bastard, they think his military service was spent in a protected bunker away from action, etc. Yes we talk about it a lot, but not going to happen.

        There are many loonies on the DM, but there is a thread of hating Harry that surpasses the loonies and speaks to the desire that monarchy needs to be ended.

      • Meg D says:

        I don’t agree, I get the impression Harry is very well-liked here in the UK by the general public. Certainly more than W&K. A few years ago, all the things you said were correct. But he has rehabbed his image a lot since then.

        No one apart from a few conspiracy theory loons thinks Charles is not his dad, that’s not a widely held theory.

    • original kay says:

      Ko- Kings? 🙂

    • Cee says:

      Andrew was a War Hero when he flew a helicopter over the Falklands Islands/Islas Malvinas. He was the only Prince to actually see action, was the better looking one, and his mother’s favourite. Somewhere along the line the press hated him and report negatively on him and his daughters.

      Many european royal houses are streamlined (dutch, danish, norwegian, etc) but their members work constantly, unlike Charles’ children. If Charles wants to be the head of the Royal House (different to a Royal Family) then he should wait until he actually IS Head. Even Harry’s children will be set aside in the future, because they will only be part of the Family and House as long as Charles is King. Even Charlotte and her children will be set aside.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Kitty, I adore Harry, but I don’t know how you can say he’s not in the same position as Andrew… 🤔

      • Kitty says:

        It’s different he is Diana’s son and I predict something I’d going to happen to the moanrcht and he may as well be the one to save it.

      • Lorelai says:

        Kitty: I think what you’re failing to grasp is that it’s not up to Harry.

        However much many of us would like to see that happen, it’s just not realistic.

        The fact that he’s Diana’s son may carry a lot of sentimental weight for many people, but it means nothing w/r/t the rules of succession.

        More knowledgeable royal-watchers can correct me if I’m wrong, but just because W&K aren’t doing a stellar job doesn’t mean Harry can just decide he’d be a better king and make it happen…

      • Cee says:

        Removing William and his children from the line of succession is not easily done. Something terrible would have to happen for this to be set in motion.

        In my opinion William will be King. the only reason I see for him not taking the crown is for Britain to become a republic and abolish the Monarchy or replace the Royal Family with another branch.

      • LAK says:

        What Lorelai said.

        Further, at the end of the day, it’s not a popularity contest and unpopularity has never stopped an heir getting to the top. -see Prinny aka George 4.

        If W does enough to maintain the status quo, he could be the most unpopular prince since Prinny or even surpass him, and still inherit the throne.

      • LAK says:

        Cee: terribly for whom?

        Despite the drama of ye old time abdications, the heir/monarch would have stopped working for the good of the people for them to be removed.

        Who decides what ‘good for the people’ is the question.

        However, as demonstrated by the most recent abdication, no blood needs to be spilled to remove them.

        I maintain that William could have stopped the drama before it became complicated by marrying a catholic or encouraging Kate to convert to catholicism or converted himself before the rules changed. Instant dismissal from the line of succession, retirement to Anmer never to be seen again except for Trooping the colour.

        We’ve had the legislation for over 200yrs.

      • Kitty says:

        @Cee, @LAK, @Lorelai, I guess you guys don’t believe anything is possible I see.

      • Cee says:

        @LAK – I meant to remove him without taking into account what he wants? Does being a lazy idiot give ground for him to be removed, along his children, against his wishes?

        I don’t see William retiring and losing all his “power”.

      • LAK says:

        Cee: if he annoys enough people who have the power to remove him, his own wishes won’t come into it. The model to follow is The Duke of Windsor’s abdication where he was persuaded to abdicate by various establishment/govt people on the promise that all would remain the same except he would be ex-king.

        We know how that turned out!!!

        As for the children, that is uncertain. We’ve had precedent where they are kept in the line of succession and precedent where they are removed along with abdicating person. It could go either way.

        I suspect their ages at the time of abdication might be a factor. In the cases where they were removed, they were young children whereas the cases where they were kept in the line, they were of age or about to reach it.

    • Kate says:

      Can the monarchy survive once charles is gone?

  5. Sixer says:

    Dear Chuck

    I think we should streamline, too. To a republic.



    • lightpurple says:

      Sixer for President!

    • embertine says:

      Sixer, I approve this message. Vive la république!

    • Clare says:

      If he is so worried about the ‘bottom line’ perhaps stop letting Willy and Katie take all expenses paid holidays, disguised as ‘work’, a couple times a year.

    • LAK says:

      Possible Reasons why this particular story is front page news. Again.

      1. Charles is about to sock it to the tax payers the true cost of refurbishing Buck house.

      2. Charles is going to try again to have the duchy of cornwall and or the crown estates revert to his personal ownership.

      And in light of my tinhat conspiracy theory, i see the final definitive assertion in the article about how much CHARLES is a thrifty, cost cutting royal ( who doesn’t live like an Edwardian Gentleman and nor do his kids!)

      On a different note, HM is such an ostrich. She should have put her foot down a long time ago before this latest squabble is repeatedly rehashed. Andrew was said to be furious the first time this came up.

      He lost the battle of tax payer security, money for the girls many years ago. The writing was on the wall. If he couldn’t, wouldn’t see sense, she should have resolved it then. Instead she’s passed the matter to Charles who is really bad at familial relationships.

      • Sixer says:

        It’s number two that worries me, LAK. Number one will come way, way behind the crumbling Westminster.

        The Crown is NOT the royal family. The Crown is the symbolic embodiment of the nation. The Crown Estates do not belong to the royal family. They belong to the nation. The royal family is supported in its constitutional role in representing the nation with a monetary payment FROM THE NATION.

      • Tina says:

        Hear, hear!

      • Amber says:

        I don’t think that’s conspiracy talk though. By all means–LAK, Sixer and whoever else, correct me if I’m wrong–But I don’t see how downsizing the monarchy will be anything more than a hollow PR coup, while having little impact on the overall expense of the institution, past giving those left biggers shares of the revenue if Charles decides. Streamlining will have no effect on the duchies or the Sovereign Grant, which are not dependent on the number of people being payed through them. (People seem to have this idea that they each get a salary or something from a nebulous taxpayer-money-trough. So fewer employees, fewer salaries. But actually even HM and the P.o.W’s incomes are not flat rates. Yeah, it’s nebulous alright.) So that’s three of your big ticket items. The only things I can think of that could have been impacted are the Civil List and parliamentary annuities… which officially don’t really exists, since a lot of this stuff was amended in 2011. Gee, isn’t it interesting that they got rid of most of the individual annual payment systems, (I think the D.o.E. still gets an annuity payment), in favor of percentages and profit shares to be doled out at HM and Prince Charles’ discretion? So, what are we really talking about? The Grim Reaper will have a say about the Queen’s cousins before Charles does. We’ll push out the Yorks. And Harry’s kids won’t have title. Whoop-dee-do. How much were the cousins costing anyway? They are low security priorities. They have some apartments at K.P. and St. James, Thatched House, Barnwell. The infrastructure is already in place, complete with multi-decade leases, to support the Wessexes, Anne, and Andrew. When you’re talking about an institution that cost hundreds of millions yearly, the effects of cutting out a few will be negligible at best. We’ve been hearing about Charles’ plan for years. Have any of you heard about him wanting to handover some palaces and sell off other estates? Because that’s literally the only major change that I can see having any significant impact on the overall expense of the monarchy. Unless Charles also has plans to limit the Sovereign Grant, and set up a more transparent system, where cost are negotiable, adjustable, and related to necessity… HA HA HA HA, I made myself laugh 😀

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: ….but see how cost-cuttingly effective Charles is. Surely he deserves to be given the duchy or the crown estates. His personal emblem has a coronet and everything.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He’s definitely going to do the first thing. The BRF have neglected Buckingham Palace for years. Wasn’t it proven several years ago that HM had spent the money for BP on others things and now that well has run dry? Charles will foist it off on the taxpayers, but couch it in terms of saving national heritage as a museum.

        LAX, I think he’ll go for personal ownership of the Crown Estate, Duchy of Cornwall, and Duchy of Lancaster. Along with ongoing freedom FROM information acts which means he’ll hide how all of it is spent.

        The decrease from 14 royals to 6 is not going to result in a decrease from $600 million to $250 million in annual costs. He just hasn’t bothered to share that piece of the story yet.

        There is another quiet rumor that he is planning on giving Balmoral back to the people of Scotland as a national park. I’m not sure how that would work. If he inherits it monarch-to-monarch is it tax free, even though it is personal property? Would he then get millions in personal tax refunds because of his donation? I’m sure he would retain the rights to stay there whenever he wanted for free, like he does with Castle Mey.

      • Sixer says:

        Balmoral belongs to Her Maj as private property – so I am sure it’s all balled up into a trust with no inheritance tax to pay – same as the Duke of Westminster’s estate just passed through with no inheritance tax due. Not sure how a “donation to the nation” would work in a tax deductible sense!

      • LAK says:

        Nota: that’s what i meant in terms of Charles trying to wrestle the ownership of the duchies and the crown estates from the nation to his personal ownership.

        And yes, despite money being provided for decades to maintain BP and other Palaces, the money was used for other things the most recent of which was WK’s refurbishment of their various homes.

        Charles will use taxpayer money for BP and other residences and justify the expense as enriching the nation.

        The opaque finances means no one can call him or HM to account for money spent.

      • Lorelai says:

        LAK, is that even remotely possible, legally, for him to revert the Duchie and the Crown Estates to his personal ownership? I thought that was out of his control.

      • LAK says:

        Lorelai: it’s supposed to be impossible, but that’s not stopping him from trying.

        If HM and he can persuade the govt to give them a % of the crown estate profits ( the Sovereign grant) instead of the previous method where they had to submit receipts and account for expenditure in a more transparent way, then it’s become possible that he could persuade our idiot politicians of the merits of giving him either property outright and sod it’s rightful legal ownership.

        Coached in ‘aren’t we much more cost efficient this way rather than sucking directly from the tax payer teet’ terms.

        Further, Charles and HM successfully argued for exemption from FOI requests and put a wall around their finances. Any requests for information are routinely turned down on security grounds and or the FOI exemption they now enjoy.

        The only time we get transparency is the annual accounts, but only as much as they wish to tell us. No auditors and no way of knowing if the figures are real. It’s assumed trust.

        Stuff does leak, but it’s become harder to detect in recent years. We tend to have a glimpse when there is a crisis and they are forced to go to the govt for top ups or something is filed in a public body which leads to leaks.

        If he gets his hands on the properties, he will be within his rights not to publish financial information based upon current laws.

    • Annetommy says:

      Totally agree. Streamline them to zero. An insight into how dysfunctional this family is that the queen passed on the letter to a flunkey to deal with. She doesn’t do emotion. Except when the royal yacht was taken out of service. That upset her.

      • LAK says:

        Your comment made me laugh because she got so much flack for crying over Britannia vs her reaction to Diana’s death a few months earlier.

    • Lorelai says:


      Hahahahahahahaha! 😂


    • Mae says:

      +1 (or whatever number . . a large one I assume/hope)

  6. Cee says:

    If you’re going to streamline then make sure your son and daughter in law actually work and fulfill at least 365 public engagements a year. If this won’t happen then either include your nieces, who actually want to DO SOMETHING, or streamline yourself into a Republic.

    I really have no patience for Charles (or Andrew!)

    • ida says:

      even though it is none of my business I totally agree with this!

    • Cerys says:

      Well said. Charles needs to sort out his own work-shy family before side-lining his nieces. He may be glad of their help some day.

    • Lorelai says:

      Cee, I agree and would love to be a fly on the wall for some of Charles’s discussions about this.

      There is simply NO. WAY. that William and Kate are going to suddenly increase their workloads to anywhere near his/Camilla’s/HM’s, and his entire “streamlining” plan depended on that.

      But I think he’s scared to lean on W&K about it too much because he’s afraid they will retaliate by cutting him out of his grandchildren’s lives even more than he already is.

      Charles has really backed himself into a corner with this one.

      • Kitty says:

        @Loreial, is that why Harry has been picking up the workload for a while? Is Charles leaning on him? I think once Harry has kids all bets are off.

      • Kitty says:

        @Lorelal, is that why Harry is picking up the workload? Is he leaving in Harry more?

      • Lorelai says:

        Kitty I honestly have no idea.

        IIRC, Harry works about the same amount and W&K do (or maybe a bit more, but it is downplayed in order to make William and Kate look better).

      • Cee says:

        Harry would have to forge an alliance with his father in order to survive. He also needs to work more.

      • Kitty says:

        Lorelai and doesn’t that frighten you that they purposely sabotage Harry in order for them to look good? This is the future King and Queen(which i doubt will happen).

  7. HejHej says:

    I doubt Anne or Ed and Sophie are surprised by this. None of their children are HRH Prince or Princess. The writing has been on the wall for literally decades.

    Also it’s incredible that Charles gets blamed for everything. Andrew is a PIG. He ought to retire completely from public life. William and Kate work so little, you already know it’s going to be proper chock for them when the Queen passes. And still it’s all Charles’ fault, even though he continuesly works hard and is preparing for a smaller and cheaper RF. It’s bizarre.

    • LAK says:

      Legally speaking, Edward and Sophie’s kids are entitled to HRH prince(ess) style. They can still take it up if they choose.

      Monarchy was going through a low point when they married and had children. It was thought that styling themselves with lower rank titles would be a good PR move. And it was. Their children hold courtesy titles of the lower rank.

      We shall see if it holds if as expected Edward is upgraded to DoE when Philip passes. The upgrade will elevate the children too.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The upgrade relies on either HM being alive after Philip passes and gifting it herself, or Charles following his late parents wishes after they’re gone. I can see him being petulant and not giving Philip’s favorite kid (Edward) that title. Charles isn’t anybody’s favorite, he might resent Edward getting their father’s title.

      • Kori says:

        Anne is Philip’s favorite. He’s had a rocky relationship with Edward in the past though the years since his marriage seem to have benefited it immensely.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne is the only daughter and the kid most like Philip. Crass, argumentative, often says the wrong thing, can be rude, and works hard. She’s like Philip but she’s not the favorite.

        Edward is the child he had when older, in his mid-forties. Not the son he had to raise to be king. Not his wife’s favorite, not the kid she lavished her attention on. Edward was “his”.

        Edward was the one who came along last, youngest in the family like Philip, that Philip could dote on at will now that he was settled in his role. None of the other kids would have gotten away with standing up to Philip and leaving the Royal Marines!

    • Lorelai says:

      And Charles is not a “pig?” Do you remember Tampongate?

      I love how this article mentions how exasperated Charles is about Andrew’s & Fergie’s “lurid headlines.” He needs to take a look in the mirror.

      • Natalie S says:

        Andrew has ties with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He’s beaten Charles hollow in the pig stakes.

      • Lorelai says:

        They’re both pigs, IMO.

        (Wasn’t Charles reportedly friends with Epstein, too? I could definitely be wrong about this!)

        They’re both gross…

      • Natalie S says:

        Charles is definitely not a saint. He was extremely close with Jimmy Savile. In my opinion, there’s no way Charles didn’t know of at least some of the issues with Savile.

        Andrew is heavily rumored to have been part of the group that assaulted trafficked girls and women. It’s what lost him his official public role in the UK. Elizabeth showed her opinion of the matter by giving Andrew another honor which also shows how much the family’s “honors” are actually worth.

      • Bridget says:

        When I think of “lurid” headlines and Fergie and Andrew, I think of the scandal where Fergie was caught on tape selling access to Andrew. Which he clearly hung her out to dry over.

      • Lorelai says:

        Ah, I forgot about the Savile stuff. I think we’re on the same page here about both brothers!

  8. Carol says:

    I thought Charles asked Andrew to take on some of his charitable work and Andrew refused so Charles just shut down his whole family. I doubt Edward and Sophie are all that bothered, since they wanted to keep private jobs anyway when they got married.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Yes, I read that too. Andrew shot himself in the foot by not being there when Charles needed him.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Why should Andrew take on work that rightfully should be done by William and Kate? If any of that were true, Charles doesn’t have the right to get pissy at Andrew because Andrew’s kids are willing to work and his aren’t.

      • bluhare says:

        If Andrew wants to be seen as part of the team, then he should act like one. And first thing about teamwork is not to go whining to mummy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And if Charles wants Andrew on the team, he needs to make concessions.

    • HK9 says:

      Ahhhh, now this is making more sense to me. If you’re not going to share the workload, then it’s going to be hard to convince people that you want to continue to share in those benefits.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Andrew is already doing twice the work W&K are doing. Why should he take on more work for Charles, when Charles has targeted Andrew’s daughters for dismissal from the family firm AND Charles’s own line isn’t working hard enough?

        William should have stepped up and assumed the Prince’s Trust when asked. But of course didn’t. It is his role, not Andrew’s. Charles needs to drop-kick W&K into the work zone instead of trying to foist more work off on Andrew.

      • HK9 says:

        This is not about W&K and their workshy attitude. This is about Andrew being astute about how Charles works. If Andrew said yes to the extra workload, I think he would have more leverage to make this case for his daughters. He could have taken the extra work and gotten Eugenie and Beatrice to assist giving them more exposure.

        By all accounts the Princesses are good public speakers and do good work. It would be much harder for Charles to cut them out if their public profile was bigger.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is entirely about lazy W&K. Andrew is already doing more than both W&K combined. He shouldn’t have to take on more, from his least favorite sibling, knowing that no matter what he does Charles is kicking the girls to the curb. Charles wants help now, but Charles is unwilling to give anything in return.

  9. Suzanne says:

    I’d like the Royal Fanily to be wrapped up full stop. Such an outdated concept.

  10. Jade says:

    Why is Andrew angry? The very concept of monarchy is about hierarchy and birth privilege.

    Why is HM such an ostrich, albeit a hardworking one?

    Why is Chuck still thinking the Dolittles will still pick up the slack?

    Why do I care hmmm…..

  11. Citresse says:

    I agree with Charles on this one.
    Times have changed. The Monarchy should reward effort and work related production just like the real world. And the real world can’t support layabouts such as the York girls.
    Problem is- the streamlined concept puts much more focus on the Cambridges which is exactly what William doesn’t want.
    It’s be KIng Henry (Harry)!!!

  12. Tourmaline says:

    Wow I thought they would wait until the Queen passed on before this infighting and drama would start in earnest.

    Interesting, remember it was just recently the same reporter Camilla Tominey broke the story that Eugenie was being given an apartment at Kensington Palace in anticipation of her soon getting engaged. Seemed like a way for Andrew (and Fergie, because I believe she is absolutely behind the scenes trying to get her “blood princesses” every morsel they can get) to line up the ducks before the Queen was out of the picture as far as getting his “girls” set up better for life. This article makes it sound like the KP thing for Eugenie is NOT a done deal, or at least, that Andrew wants Beatrice set up at KP as well.

    The article actually makes the Queen and Charles, especially the Queen, sound like ostrich losers who can’t communicate with people directly. At least obnoxious Andy had the balls to send a letter to his mother directly, LOL at her passing it on her staff!!

    • LAK says:

      I find this aspect of HM and Charles very troubling.

      Yet rehashing the story in the media in an article that points out how good he is when compared to his siblings/family is totally Charles’s MO.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I’m sure Andrew is pressuring HM privately for massive “private” funds to be left to the girls in her will.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Tourmeline ITA, and I think it is smart for them to try and get their ducks in a row, so to speak, before HM passes. After that, they’re screwed, and they know it.

      I respect the Queen in many ways but I do find her ostrich tendencies to be disappointing. I feel for Beatrice and Eugenie and wish HM would step in here, somehow.

      • A says:

        The worst thing about the situation is that it’s Beatrice and Eugenie who stand to lose the most. It’s depressing how much of their troubles stem from their parents who just can’t keep their traps shut. They’re really well loved by the Queen herself, that much is apparent, but if Andrew keeps fiddling with these things, they’re going to be stop being popular really fast. It’s not looking good. :/

    • Tourmaline says:

      Yeah, I kind of feel bad for calling the Queen an ostrich although she has a long history of acting like one, simply because I feel at her advanced age she deserves a pretty stress-free life.

      It seems so much more humane the way say the Netherlands does it (and other countries recently have, like Belgium and Spain)—let the reigning monarch step away and live out their golden years while the heir steps in. But of course its been made clear that the British royals will never go for that.

      Wonder what Phil thinks of what Andy is asking for….

      • Lorelai says:

        Tourmaline, I know, it doesn’t seem right that a 90-year-old woman should be subject (no pun intended!) to so much family drama at this stage of her life. However, a lot of this might have been avoided if she’d dealt with it decades ago. Sigh.

  13. Kitty says:

    If Charles is going to streamline the monarchy than good luck with the that seeing how William and Kate lack work ethic and are work shy. So like someone said it will be him, Camilla and Harry doing all the work.

  14. Sasha says:

    It is time for the monarchy to go altogether, and here are people wrangling about some royal cousins ? Like they haven’t gotten enough privilege already.

    Sure, the queen is popular and a nice lady, but it is time for all of them to go. Give them a pension and let it go.

  15. graymatters says:

    If this is true (and I have my doubts) it just shows how PR deaf Andrew is. When he defended Jeffrey Epstein Andrew thought he was DEFENDING his FRIEND, who happened to be a pedophile. What the public saw was him DEFENDING his friend, who happened to be a PEDOPHILE. (Caps for emphasis, not insult.)

    And, for the record, the way to ask for a promotion is to point out how much your skills will be needed in the future, not to whine about how very, very special your Daddy thinks you are. If B and E (no joke intended) wrote to HM and offered to start taking over some of the work that she and the other elder royals had been doing so well for so long, the result may have been different. For that matter, they could offer to help their Uncle Charles out with his trust — Bea’s experience would probably be very useful with that. They could deliberately go for the lower-profile stuff, seemingly to free up WK for the glamour jobs.

    • LAK says:

      They do help out occassionally.

      As recently as last week, Eugenie represented the crown at a service of thanksgiving for William Wilberforce (slavery abolitionist) which was attended by the Prime Minister

      She released an anti-slavery PSA on the same day.

      Meanwhile Beatrice was on an unofficial tour of Nepal for charity preceeded by a fundraising triathlon for her charity Big Change whose focus for the raised funds ( from all participants) was dyslexia support charities. The triathlon raised £1M.

      She gave a coherent statement to the Press about Big Change and Dyslexia support. No stammering word salads.

      This year they co-hosted one of HM’s garden parties and have co-hosted with their father at BP receptions.

      I list these things to say that they are working for the royal family and for charity, it simply doesn’t garner a parade lije it does for WHK.

      • graymatters says:

        I know that they help out and do it well, by all accounts. I meant that they could point to that experience as evidence that they’re capable of a more formalized role. So their letter would be: Dear Granny, Your Majesty, We really enjoy helping you and meeting all those lovely charity workers who think you’re super-amazing. If you like, we could totally rearrange our lives to do this on a permanent basis — even 400 times a year!

        Bea could write to the PoW and say something to the effect that, you’ve done such amazing work with your trust and I’d like to help you keep it going strong while you get increasingly busy with matters of state. My education, charity work, and various jobs have positioned me to truly understand the sort of nitty-gritty behind-the-scenes work that is necessary to keep your legacy flourishing until the next willing PoW takes on the mantle.

      • LAK says:

        If only common sense prevailed.

        Charles is all about status. As are all of them. Merit is for peasants.

      • Lorelai says:

        Graymatters that is an excellent idea. But ultimately it seems this will be up to Charles and he cares only about direct lineage. Apparently.

      • Rtms says:

        Wow I’m wondering if it’s worth it to them to try this route. The comments from those articles are savage toward the girls. WK have really greased the PR against them because nobody seems to take these girls seriously even when the do help out. And I honestly believe they do these at the behest of HM out of love ve and respect for her.

      • A says:

        @Rtms–it’s not W&K. They’ve had the odds stacked against them from the beginning because they’re Andrew and (gasp!) Fergie’s kids. The press vilifying them is largely a result of them having vilified Fergie. They hated her when she was still married to Andrew, and they are continuing their hate against her kids. It’s been this way with the press forever.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with LAK. It’s not about working; it’s about being Royal. and an important one at that.

    • graymatters says:

      Maybe not. That’s why I said Andrew’s approach was flawed. He turned down a secondary role in the Prince’s trust and thinks his daughters should get more because of status. If they say they’re qualified and willing to do the “menial” stuff, Charles would be more inclined to listen. And why I think the girls should approach HM directly and nicely. That approach would less likely be handed off to someone else to deal with. It wouldn’t mean any more public funds, just a rebudgeting of existing monies.

      • LAK says:

        I think rather than write letters, they Andrew) should try the direct in person approach. It worked for Anne/ Alexandra and the ‘blood princess’ malarkey.

  16. Sharon Lea says:

    One should think of what this will mean for Harry, and as we might assume, if he has children. This will set a president. Would they too have roles or will they go to college or into the military and have careers?

    Someone on the DM made the great point that Princess Margaret’s children Lady Sarah & Viscount Linley got on with their lives and did not ask for public roles, which wasn’t that long ago, the 80s and 90s.

    • Cee says:

      And Charlotte’s children, too. Actually, this sets a precedent for everyone except the direct heir/heiress.

    • LAK says:

      Princess Margaret’s children are of royal lineage, but they are not royal. Same as Anne. Due to the primogenature thing, her children, like Anne’s children were always going to fall very far and very quickly in the line of succession.

      Yet, The Queen kept her cousins working. The kents ( though Prince Michael only occassionally), the Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra.

      Perhaps it’s a case of willingness as well as having the royal status that warrants the position.

      The Kent, Gloucester, Ogilvy ( Alexandra’s married name) children were trimmed off and have normal lives.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Prince and Princess Michael are the odd ones out in that bunch. They are not officially working royals and are not listed in the CC. But they do what look like royal engagements, fill seats at State dinners, show up when asked, and were given almost-free rent in KP for years. They also work, including writing books and her design company.

      • A says:

        Consider the number of engagements performed by folks like the Kents & Gloucesters though. It’s not a whole lot, and the number has dropped significantly over the years as the Queen’s children took over a large portion of them. Not to mention, times are significantly different from when they were in the public eye vs now. I can’t imagine that people really want a large royal family getting a public paycheck when they’re not that significant and likely not going to be very significant going forward.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They may not want a large royal family, but they’re not going to accept less overall work from the family as a whole. Both Alexandra and Duke of Kent have battled serious illness in the last two years, which has reduced their work load temporarily.

        2015 engagement figures
        Duke of Gloucester 218
        Duchess of Gloucester 114
        Princess Alexandra 88
        Duke of Kent 180

        Not insignificant numbers when you add them up. B&E could take over all of these, plus take on Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and Anne’s work when they retire.

  17. Citresse says:

    This situation has been brewing between Charles and Andrew for quite some time. Charles resents Andrew and matters worsened when Andrew was named in that underage sex scandal. They’re really not on speaking terms.
    It’s (everything to do with the British Monarchy) really going to get ugly when HM dies.

    • Cee says:

      Good on him for taking it out on his nieces, too.
      This family is adept at showing the world how disfunctional they are.

    • Kitty says:

      I honestly do not think the monarchy will last without The Queen. William and Kate aren’t ones to help the monarchy with their lack of work ethic.

    • Bridget says:

      I’ve always read this not as Charles trying to cut out Beatrice and Eugenie, but trying to cut out Andrew.

  18. Azurea says:

    Andrew gave up all rights to anything when he started hanging out with a pedophile.
    Charles was friends with one, too, for that matter.
    The upper class is rife with them.

  19. Cerys says:

    Charles’ idea for streamlining the monarchy is a good one. However it ignores the fact that the Dolittles will not pick up the slack once the others stop. Also, at the risk of making myself very unpopular, I will dare to say that Harry does not do very many engagements per year compared to the Wessexes, Anne, the Gloucesters etc. However Harry at least seems more likely to step up if asked.
    I don’t have much sympathy for Andrew usually but if there is a lack of royals to cover all the patronages they are expected to take on then he may have a point about his daughters being full-time royals. They are likely to do more than W&K. I think even the much-maligned Andrew did more royal duties last year than W&K.
    The Queen is well-known for sticking her head in the sand and ignoring conflict within the family. That’s why Willnot and Cannot get away with doing so little work. She will leave Charles to take the flack from Andrew and public opinion.

    • LAK says:

      His numbers were ahead of combined William and Kate.

    • Kitty says:

      Well Harry does do alot but alot of the things he does is counted as private engagements.

    • A says:

      How do you know for sure that W&K won’t pick up the slack? Charles can be very forceful when he wants to be, and isn’t afraid of confrontation or familial strife if it means he can set the record straight. I cannot see any scenario where W&K don’t pick up the slack, either through being forced or otherwise, and still retain their popularity. And I’m pretty sure they’re fairly well aware of this fact, which is likely why they’re dragging their feet the entire way so far.

      • Kitty says:

        @A well rumors were stating how Charles doesn’t get to see his grandkids that much and if they were true he would want to see his grandchildren and let William and Kate get away with everything until well Harry has his own kids than I bet he wouldn’t care as much anymore since he and Harry seems close.

  20. notasugarhere says:

    Fandom rumor (reminder, rumor) that K, kids, two nannies, and pile of RPOs went with William to Scotland yesterday. Interesting if true. He did an event there today. Has anybody spotted the young Duke of Westminster’s private jet lately?

  21. cherrypie says:

    The Royal Family is such a farce…..its 2016 not 1066. Yeah, I havent had my morning coffee yet so there!

  22. Kitty says:

    I have a few questions. if and when Harry has children will they be titled Prince/Princess? Also where do you think he will live? Clarence House? Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace? You think William and Kate will ever be King and Queen?

    • Cee says:

      I don’t know if the Queen would amend the LP to allow his children to be HRH Princes/esses. I think it was done with William because 1) equal primogeniture and they had to make sure that if the first born was a daughter then she would be styled accordingly as the eldest child of the POW’s Heir. 2) William will be King. However Charlotte got the title, so maybe the Queen will relent in terms of furthering amending the LP to include Harry’s children.

      If Harry’s children are born while Charles is King then they will automatically be styled HRH etc as they are grandchildren to the Monarch through a male line.

      I don’t see how the Monarchy could survive unless Charles’s reign is short. He’s not popular. William is still popular even though he’s lazy. Many would want to see Diana’s son as King, but his time will come after Charles, not before.

      • Kitty says:

        @CEE, I think The Queen will amend so that Harry’s children will be Prince/ss. I mean Harry is very popular. Imagine if he named his daughter after Diana. She would be known as Princess Diana :). Also I don’t think William wants to be King. Knowing how The Queen is 90 and her mother lived till 101 I think Charles will live a long life meaning long reign maybe 20 years?

      • Cee says:

        Naming any daughter Diana would be atrocious! These girls will already have to grow up with the added expectation of being like their celebrated grandmother… the press tried to turn Kate into Diana, and that failed. This is why I’m so glad Charlotte resembles her maternal grandmother and not Diana.

      • A says:

        I thought that if Harry were to marry and have kids right now, while QEII is still the monarch, that his children wouldn’t be styled as Prince and Princess, but that once Charles inherits the throne, since he is the son of the reigning monarch and his kids are the grandchildren of a reigning monarch, they would become entitled to the styles of Prince and Princess? All of the Queen’s grandchildren are referred to as Prince and Princess, except for Edward’s kids, but that was by their request. I think that’s how that works. As for their royal residence, who knows really. But I sure hope that he doesn’t name his kids after Diana. That would be completely unnecessary and what kid needs that kind of a shadow looming over them?

      • Kitty says:

        @Cee, well if he did name his daughter after Diana I think it would be great but possibly overshadow William and Kate in general.

  23. Moon says:

    I’m all for streamlining and corporatizing the monarchy. That is, salary, bonuses and promotions are based on work and results. So by all means, let’s streamline out the lazy cambridges…

  24. JaneDoesWork says:

    Here’s what I don’t get… wouldn’t the same rule apply to Harry eventually? Like, under this system Harry’s children will just be like normal people? Also, it isn’t fair to the York girls to expect them to chip when Will and in AND have full time jobs (not that Beatrice does much of anything now.) It just seems like the do nothings of Cambridge want to call the York girls in when they don’t feel like doing something, but they can’t expect them to have full time jobs AND be willing to drop them at a moments notice.

    • A says:

      Yes, it would. But consider this–how much does the average person know about or care about Princess Margaret’s children? You don’t see them much in the public eye, largely because they have their own lives and jobs to get on with. That’s the fate of royal siblings. I likely suspect that Harry’s kids will have a far more muted public presence than he does right now. They are likely to be referred to as HRH, with the title of Prince & Princess, but they won’t get anywhere near the coverage as Willy’s children will. And the same will likely happen to Princess Charlotte and her children as well, with the added caveat that her kids won’t be royals at all. I largely see this as Charles looking at the reality of the situation and going on to take the logical step. Imo, it’s very needed.

      Also, I doubt the Dolittles what anything to do with the York girls. If the rumours are true about them hating each other, then I can’t see why they’d risk them coming in and doing engagements and likely making a better name for themselves than the Cambridges. They’re more the, “I can’t have it, but you can’t have it either,” types.

      • Kitty says:

        @A, why can’t you and others can’t agree with the fact not everything stays the same. QE II father was second born but got lots of attention of being a family man and he ended up being King. Anything can happen in the future. Even I think the monarchy will not last without The Queen.

      • Cee says:

        Albert became King because his brother decided to be stubborn and marry a twice divorced American. And some say he had some shady attitudes towards Nazism but I hardly know anything about it.

        If David had been a run of the mill POW, with a British wife, I really doubt he would have been made to step aside and for his married brother to take his place. Besides, he was already King (though not crowned yet)

      • Kitty says:

        @Cee, why can’t you believe anything is possible? I bet The Queen does.

      • Cee says:

        Because I’m not overly invested in this. They’re not my RF. I don’t support them either financially or morally. And I do believe that there are rules set out to protect them and the order in which they exist. If removing a HOS was so easy then Royal Houses would fall over all the time. It’s not like they can go to battle LOL

        Isn’t there a Catholic branch with more “royal blood” or “claims” than the Windsors?

        I also doubt the Queen would consider abdication something nice. Or even disrupting the status quo and order.

      • Kitty says:

        @Cee, anything is possible. Don’t set yourself for no change at all.

  25. Lorelai says:

    Charles is such a dolt.

    At this point, though, I think he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. He came up with this whole “streamlining” plan far before he knew how work-averse William and his wife would be. I wonder if, knowing what he knows now, he would go back and maybe structure things a little differently. His plan CANNOT work with W/K’s “workload.”

    And yes, Andrew has made his share of mistakes and garnered some unsavory headlines. But so has Charles! I find it ridiculous that he seems to find himself so superior to his brother.

    Re: Edward and Sophie, I don’t know. I think Sophie is an *incredible* asset to the BRF and it would be a real shame to remove her from her royal duties because Chuck thinks he knows best about absolutely everything.

    We are in for a real shitshow after the Queen passes away.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Sophie is a big asset, but she and Edward live far above their means at Bagshot. If HM is subsidizing them, Charles isn’t going to continue doing so. I expect to see them move to a much smaller home, maybe something on private Sandringham, within their rental means once Charles is king.

      Anne owns Gatcombe, Andrew owns the chalet in Switzerland plus has the iron-clad Royal Lodge Windsor lease. Edward and Sophie are the most vulnerable, as they do not have private property and I suspect cannot afford the Bagshot lease on their own.

      • Lorelai says:

        NOTA, thank you, I didn’t realize that about the Wessexes living situation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        For a time, they rented out a big chunk of the house for his production company which allayed some costs. Then rented it out to a different business (not one they were running themselves).

        Bagshot is above their means, but HM loves Sophie and E&S wanted a grand Crown Estate house near HM at Windsor. I don’t see Charles picking up the tab for them living in that huge house.

      • A says:

        Isn’t Edward slated to inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title after Philip passes away? How does that change things for him, money wise? I highly doubt that QEII would leave Edward and Sophie in the lurch after her passing, considering they’ve pulled their weight impeccably well over their time as working royals. What’s the likelihood of there being some provision worked out for them wrt their home and otherwise?

      • Cee says:

        @A – I think it goes like this:

        1. DoE title inherited by Charles because he’s first in line as his father’s eldest son.
        2. Title reverts to the Crown when Charles becomes King.
        3. Charles, as King, can give the title to his youngest brother.

        Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Tourmaline says:

        good point @notasugarhere, Bagshot is MASSIVE! It makes Anmer Hall look like my one-car garage. Heck it gives Downton Abbey and Gosford Park a run for the money.

      • mbh12 says:

        The Queen already took care of Prince Edward’s situation before he married, she gave her son Prince Edward a 80 year lease on Bagshot paid out, to insure her son had a place to live into old age. That lease is guaranteed, as in already paid. Charles can’t destroy that contract, it’s already been done and dusted. The Queen planned for Edward’s future. The only thing Charles can do is wait until Edward dies and then go for Bagshot, but until then Charles can’t break a lease and contract done and dusted by the Queen on that Bagshot property. Edward and Sophie will be fine.

        One thing I never understood about Prince Charles is why he balked at and went after Edward and Sophie for wanting to work, This was before the scandal about the sheik, which I have heard and read that Prince Charles set up anyway. Even though I like that Edward and Sophie are hardworking royals *over 500 duties a year) If Sophie and Edward were allowed to work during these past 20yrs, once the PR Smear Campaign created by Charles against them passed.
        I never understood why Charles didn’t want them to work, but he wanted to slim the Monarchy. Working would have slim it a bit.
        IMO No way Kate can handle 500 royal duties a year, no way. No way I think William can do 600 a year, I think he will balk.
        I don’t believe William wants it, it will be too restricting for him. JMO

      • Kitty says:

        @mbh12, I just don’t get why people can not see that William doesn’t want to be King? He only enjoys the perks and privileges.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The lease is not paid by HM, at least according to the sources I find online. They pay annually around 90,000 pounds and only have access to it for 50 years not 80.

        They don’t own anything. Both Anne and Andrew do, which means they have something to leave their kids. Edward and Sophie don’t own anything, no physical property to leave Louise and James. I suspect HM will leave them cash, and cash for the kids. The question is HM’s horse breeding property in Kentucky. Will it go to horse-mad Zara or to horse-mad Sophie?

        Cee, the Duke of Edinburgh title was created. It isn’t an aristocratic title that is inherited by the eldest son. Wishes have been expressed that Edward get it after Philip dies, but it is up to Charles to follow through on those wishes or not.

      • Cee says:

        @notasugarhere – I understood it was different. If thr DoE dies before TQ (likely to happen) then there would be no issue if the title simply reverts back to the crown. she would simply create her son the new DoE.

        I really did think the issue was that the title would pass to Charles until he became King.

  26. Boston Green Eyes says:

    I cannot believe that with Britain’s economic austerity programs brutalizing the most vulnerable in society, that the UK still finds it in their hearts – and purses – to finance this VERY wealthy nest of parasites! There are people in the UK who have stopped receiving their minuscule benefits because they couldn’t make their Job Centre appointments because they had to get to their cancer treatments! It’s a bloody disgrace that the Royal Family get all sorts of money from the public coffers when they have enough money and property to live off of for eternity.

    This stupid bloody family should have to sit through the new Ken Loarch film, “I, Daniel Blake.” But I doubt any of it would register with these morons.

    (now stepping off of my soapbox).

    • Natalie S says:

      I agree. The self-importance and greed of this entire family is absurd.

    • Sixer says:

      I went to see I, Daniel Blake on Saturday. Packed cinema. At the end, half the audience stood up and applauded and the other half was sobbing too much to stand. We were late going in and on the way out, the cinema staff said the same thing had happened with the previous screening: people were sat crying for so long that it pushed the next showing late.

      With the loud xenophobic voices that we’ve had everywhere since Brexit, it kinda made me feel that perhaps I haven’t suddenly found myself living in the world’s nastiest country after all.

  27. Radley says:

    As an ugly American, I don’t get why royal families are still a thing. I guess they’re good for tourism and they do goodwill ambassador type things, but geez is it worth it? They seem like spoiled screw ups and hasn’t Andrew been in some serious scandals? Like skating by some serious sex offender stuff?

    One of them looks like a Kennedy–all deep set eyes and toothsome. I don’t know which one is Beatrice and which one is Eugenie and I’m too lazy and indifferent to google. LOL But y’all know which one.

    • Cee says:

      France got rid of its RF and their tourism is doing great. People don’t go to Britain because of the Royals – it’s not like you can break for tea with the Queen.

      Imagine if all those palaces were open to the public? That would be a lot of revenue.

  28. seesittellsit says:

    Beatrice has announced what, four jobs in the last few years, but mostly spends her time junketing off to luxury vacations?! I’m not surprised Andrew wants his kids on the royal gravy train but does he not see how moaning about them needing bigger apartments in Kensington Palace, and not being on the Sovereign Grant, plays with a large population facing economic uncertainty? Has the man looked at the rental rated in London?!

    Andrew is a braying a***. The whole push now is for streamlined monarchies, not as many people as possible being supported in style by the public. Charles is right, I hope he doesn’t cave.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Again, most of those “luxury vacations” vacations were weekend trips to ski, friends weddings, and funerals. They weren’t weeks on end in Mustique or in the south of France. She had two year-long internships, had a year-long job at Sony that ended with the hacking scandal, did her finance studies, and now has another job iirc.

      • seesittellsit says:

        Come on – that girl hasn’t really paid her own way in life from the get-go. Everything she has, she got as a perk of being royal. Really, a year long job at SONY? Is that what is paying for all those clothes? She is a privileged member of a class of people increasingly seen as parasites. Even Denmark, which likes its royals quite a bit, has informed the royal family that only the heir will get a household stipend to carry out his duties, not the other three younger kids, and certainly not the younger brother’s kids . . .

        It’s enough already. Kate and William look like they are picking up the pace in response to criticism, Andrew should have brought his kids up to expect to make their way in life, not moan because, as anyone could have foretold, the next heir’s wife and kiddies take precedence.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The continental royal families have always done things differently that the BRF. Moving to the main line makes sense, but over time not in this fashion. Three of the steadiest working royals are 80+ years old. B&E could fill those roles for a couple of decades, since W&K are never going to work hard enough.

        W&K are doing their traditional fall “rush” to make their numbers look better. I’m interested to see if they are sneaking off on another vacation this week as has been rumored.

        Beatrice and Eugenie received millions in private inheritance from the Queen Mum, as did the rest of the great grandchildren who were alive in 1994 when the Queen Mum tied her private money up and away from the taxman. That private money was estimated around £19 million at the time.

        HM also used private funds to create millions in trust funds for them at the time of their parents divorce. Sarah famously got nothing, HM put money in trust for the girls. It has been invested in things like real estate. A house co-owed by the girls sold recently after 20 years of increasing in value. That likely netted them a pretty profit.

      • Cee says:

        They will always benefit from their title, parentage, and connections, just like their cousins do. Peter and Zara Philips live monetary-free lives paid for by Anne and the Crown.

      • Lorelai says:

        I don’t understand the vitriol toward Beatrice and Eugenie. They shouldn’t be blamed for their parents’ failings.

        And Charles might need them whether he likes it or not.

    • Lorelai says:

      I’m crying laughing at “braying a***!”

  29. Yup, Me says:

    Every time I see Charles, all I can think about is how his fingers look like snausages.

  30. I was wondering when the press would bring that up again, every now and then when the press wants to talk about the York princesses charities/duties or they see them a bit more active in those areas they like to come up with this story, they even added they kate rivalry into the article. That will defiantly perk up some ears for gossip. Obviously it worked from the comments in here.

    The press seems to have a pattern with them. Next up will be their ‘partying’ ways.. probably .. But if true in some way PC and PA seem to have to come to an understanding of sorts as they seem a bit more active, but then again its a special year for their grandmother and they are usually active with their charities and family events, even in unofficial level.

    I don’t believe that article has any merit at all as they didn’t even check the facts. The York Princesses know their place and are happy to help out whenever they can officially or not. Some
    Either way must be a slow news day to bring this up again.

  31. A says:

    Lmao, Andrew can just keep crying harder, idgaf. He’s a disgrace to the RF, and a complete jerk to boot who thinks he’s entitled to the perks of being a royal but doesn’t have an ounce of the commitment required. He’d much rather bully and bluster and shout his way through to get what he wants, and the worst thing is that the people around him have enabled him for so long in his life that he actually doesn’t even realize that he doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together. Charles can’t cut him out of his life fast enough, imo. The fact that he thinks Beatrice and Eugenie are legit the only two blood princesses in the family, completely skipping over Lady Louise Windsor (who is also just as much a princess, in spite of the lack of title), just shows how much of a fucking prick he is really.

    But even aside from any personal beef Charles might have with Andrew, logistically, it makes sense. Andrew has two daughters. Whatever said and done, while they may be royals, their children will not be royals, they will most likely be commoners or aristos, depending on who they marry, much like Zara and Mike. They’re still family, but legally, they are no longer royal. So why should Charles realistically continue to subsidize two individuals whose contributions to the family have thus far been limited, and will likely also be limited in the future? It’s sad, but that’s how it goes. If you look at all the other members of the RF’s extended family, the Queen’s first cousins have largely dropped out of the public eye over the years. They do an engagement here and there, but their duties have been taken over by the descendants of the main line. How sustainable is it to continue to pay two people as full-time royals when they will likely be shunted off to the sidelines whether they like it or not?

    • LAK says:

      The Queen’s cousins have fallen out of the public eye due to ill health and advancing years. Alexandra and DKent had very serious poor health and are semi retired as a result. Prince Michael has never been a working royal despite the perks. DGloucester continues to work consistently even if his engagements don’t make it into the press.

      They still pull in 200 engagements each annually which is more than WHK have ever done in the 5yrs they’ve been promoted to senior royal status.

      Legally BE are still royal and HRH prince(ss) due to LP 1917 and not where they lie in the line of succession. Ditto Edward Wessex and his family, Anne, Alexandra, the Kents and the Gloucesters. Only parliament can remove that and as far as we know, no such act has been put into action.

      • A says:

        “even if his engagements don’t make it into the press” — Well there you go. I hate to say it, but what is the point of the RF if their good work doesn’t get the coverage it deserves? I can’t imagine that this is Charles really trying to cull the folks who don’t do work, it’s about propping up the members of his family who are most likely to keep the RF and its good behaviour in the press where the lay observer (not a royal watcher) can see and nod and go, “Yes, that’s acceptable.” W&K might be Dolittles, but they are still the most recognizable members of the RF and the ones who are most likely to get their names and the cause in the papers where people can see them. I doubt any lay observer would be okay with their tax money going to benefit a bunch of people they’ve never heard of and couldn’t care less about. It doesn’t look good. It’s an attempt on Charles’ part to look like he’s doing some image control. Whether it’ll work or not is to be seen.

      • A says:

        Also, just to clarify, my comment was about B&E’s children, who won’t be royal. They can’t inherit their royal status from their mother, they’ll only inherit their status from their father, and if he’s a commoner, then that’s what they’ll be as well, much in the same vein as Peter, Zara, and Princess Alexandra’s children.

      • A says:

        Also, I hate to be nitpicky about numbers and figures here, but from my own tallying of W&K’s work numbers, Willy seems to have done an upwards of about 105-ish engagements by the end of September this year. He sits in the tally somewhere between the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, but only by a handful of engagements by each. The Countess of Wessex stands at 137 engagements this year. And by all accounts, it seems like Willy has done about 1/2 the total engagements the Queen has done by the end of September, which is 217.

        I don’t like looking at raw numbers very often, because they can be quite inaccurate (see Harry’s tally for instance, which sits at 90, even though we all know he’s done a ton more work than what’s counted here), but I can definitely see a swing in the balance here tbh.

      • LAK says:

        I agree with your clarified points, but the lesser royals tend to do the bread and butter ribbon cutting of the association of butchers of Essex kind (made up name and apologies to butchers.) Anne falls in this category too.

        WK do the glamourous kind of royal duties plus have the service of the Palace PR machine to promote their rvents over the lesser bread and butter stuff.

        WK’s numbers have really gone up this year after a huge, unprecedented media bollocking for being workshy. Those headlines went around the world and his interviews with the *BBC (!)to cool the situation down

        *BBC is the ultimate royal propaganda machine and for them to ask him directly to explain himself tells you how low he has sunk. And to use a reporter loathed by the royals, especially Charles!LOL!

        Subsequently, they’ve picked up the pace. Racked the numbers, primarily from the 2 tours. Tours always give them ( and all royals) big numbers since every little thing eg tarmac greeting is treated as an engagement.

        No hiding away before and after each tour for months on end.

        Also have you noticed that they’ve been accompanied and or organised by BP staff after that workshy debacle. HM definitely took charge. Telling Christopher Giert (sp?), her private secretary,that you’d rather people didn’t have expectations of your attendance at an annual event as the excuse for skipping it, is tantamount to telling HM directly. Christopher accompanied Kate to the Netherlands. Other BP staff were part of the Canadian tour. No screw ups like on the India tour, and more stops as opposed to their usual vacation tours. Her more sophisticated canadian wardrobe may have also had BP fingerprints all over it because it was the opposite of what her usual stylist puts together.

        For the first time this year, i think they will both reach the magic 200, possibly surpass it, but that’s because BP has taken charge of them in terms of forcing them out to work.

        Placing them front and centre in documentaries, balcony, Balmoral wasn’t an accident and it has HM’s fingerprints all over it.

        Finally duke of Kent is recovering from serious illness. He really shouldn’t be out at all. Duke of Gloucester continues racking up his numbers without needing to be pushed.

        Harry has done alot of private work as always, but in light of this streamlining, perhaps he needs to do more official duties and less private work. As it stands, because he does fewer official duties or his events aren’t counted as such, many people think he doesn’t work at all and merely shows up once in awhile per the official list.

      • Kitty says:

        @LAK, well thats because Harry can’t be seen doing more than William.

  32. Ollie says:

    Beatrice was vor charity in Nepal last week and she did an awesome job. Very charming and natural. She spend time with the people there. We’re not taliing about 30minutes photo op.
    She made people truly smiled and invited kids vor dinner and played with them. She was very natural with everyone. Shades of Harry a little bit 🙂 This surprised me. She really made it look so easy.

    Eugenie doesn’t seem interested, Beatrice maybe. IMO Beatrice could rock the boat if given the chance. She has it in her, but she may live a happier life outside the firm…

  33. minx says:

    Well, I can’t stomach the whole so-called “Royal” concept anyway, so I say boot them all off the dole.

  34. Kelly says:

    I’m not sure if this was mentioned but what does Andrew do? Additionally, Andrew is very problematic with allegations of using escorts and the questionable age of some escorts. So maybe Charles is trying to push him out due to the allegations and embarrassment; same for Fergie. Unfortunately the princesses are just caught up in it. No, yes? Am I way off?

  35. Meow says:

    This deluded family should get proper jobs and pay rent and bills like the rest of us have to do. Jesus H Christ I HATE the way they’re blind to their great privilege. They won’t starve or fret about joblessness.

    If I ever meet a royal I shan’t bow a millimetre.

  36. Citresse says:

    Why does Prince Andrew believe his daughters are the only blood princesses? There’s his sister Princess Anne and of course Princess Charlotte is a blood princess isn’t she?

  37. Bread and Circuses says:

    I think Charles has to do this. Despite all its holdings, there have been a few hints in the past decade or so that the royal family is (relatively speaking) a bit hard up for cash. They’ve been having trouble heating/upkeeping some historically important buildings, for example, and it’s not like they can sell these buildings off to streamline their finances.

    The money has to come from somewhere else, and paying people a living wage is expensive. Families tend to expand in numbers, not contract, so I assume royal families all through history have had to make decisions about who gets supported and who is on their own (in those cases where assassinations didn’t take care of the population problem.) 🙂

    • notasugarhere says:

      They are funded to the tune of $600million a year overall by the taxpayers. If they have mishandled the money for decades and public buildings are falling apart because of it? It is their fault but ultimately it will be the public who pays. None of it will be paid for with the Windsors private money.

      • Kitty says:

        I don’t think the taxpayers will be willing to pay for Buckingham Palace refurbishment.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t think they’re going to be given a choice. They will be guilted, shamed, or tricked in to it, but ultimately the taxpayers will pay.

  38. DanaG says:

    The problem is Andrew and Sarah are such bad role models as Royals their daughters dont stand a chance nor has either girl shown any real effort to be involved in charities. They go to parties etc, Bea sold a hat once and did a marathon. Mostly Bea is on holiday and Eugenie holds down a full time job, Charles would have to pick up the bills the Queen gives the working Royals money, Charles will inheret this I dont believe he is going to sack Ann or Edward who do brilliant jobs but Andrew with his shonky deals will be in trouble. Basically Andrew wants the girls on the gravy train and Charles doesnt want to have to support them. Sarah already gets handouts from the girls and their trustfunds. It wont happen neither have shown much insterest in anything other then parties and holidays with the odd charity gig thrown in. There mother was the laziest Royal ever if you think Kate and Wills are workshy go have a look at her record. I understand why Charles is allowing William and Kate to spend as much time as they can being “normal” cause when the Queen dies their lives will change and that is when they will really have to work and they know that.

  39. Kitty says:

    Now where will Harry live once he’s married and has kids? A suite in Buckingham Palace? I think Nottingham Cottage is a bit small to raise kids and Will/Kate have the largest apartment in Kensington. Maybe once Charles is King, Harry will get Clarence House.

  40. Kate says:

    Charles needs to give up on the idea of an über streamlined monarchy. If William and Kate weren’t spectacular wastes of oxygen or he’d had a couple more children, it would have been a great plan. As it is though, once the Queen is gone his plan means it’ll just be him, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. So two hard workers the public tolerate but will never warm to like the Queen, two losers the public is starting to hate, and one hard worker the public kind of likes but could easily turn against if he does anything dumb ever again. Oh, and two kids being raised by the aforementioned losers, so no great hopes there.

    The York sisters do a good job for their causes and they’re likeable in comparison. Sophie does a good job for her causes and is also likeable. Ann isn’t exactly likeable but she’s a hard worker. Kick out Andrew by all means, but putting the entirety of the monarchy on William, Kate and their offsprings shoulders…unless Charles is a secret republican it’s an idiotic idea to still be pursuing at this point.

  41. Tweegy says:

    I think the gis should not be cut out completely. They should help out where they can. But I read meaning to the part where the Queen rather than respond to the request of Andrew passed it on to someone else. Three questions I ask are
    1) did Andrew just realize that his girls will be shut off and have to live a normal life, get jobs etc
    2) will Edward be made Duke of Edinburgh and if he does will the style of his children change
    3) if Charles becomes King will Anne still be the princess Royal

    Please of what importance is the title Princess Royal?

    • Cee says:

      Princess Anne will hold that title until she dies. As it is reserved for the Monarch’s eldest daughter, Princess Charlotte is the only one who could hold that title in the future, but only if her father, as King, gives it to her.

  42. notasugarhere says:

    Harry’s tour dates announced. Two weeks in the Caribbean in November-December. Someone is getting a reward for a job well done.

  43. Kaz says:

    A streamlined monarchy a la Charles’ vision will simply not be able to cope with all the work and patronages when this older generation passes on – Phil, Liz and her cousins. Charlie should embrace his family and be pleased that despite their parents, the yorkies have turned out to be 2 nice and able royal representatives. It would look so much better if all the younger royals were seen to be supportive and willing and working hard to support their grandparents, rather than being sidelined. Jason, got that?

  44. FuefinaWG says:

    Harry is Charles’ son; he looks like Prince Phillip, for God’s sake … and apparently, this person thinks the same as I do:

  45. Abby_J says:

    This is fascinating! I always find stories (both real and made up) involving (historical) Royal politics to be very interesting.

    I am just glad that this won’t end in anyone being beheaded.