There are lots of conversations about Princess Beatrice and Eugenie this week. My working theory is that Prince Andrew only agreed to relinquish his royal titles and honors with the understanding that A) he could continue to live in Royal Lodge and B) his daughters’ titles would be unaffected. Well, people are coming for Royal Lodge, but I’m not sure if anything will happen with Beatrice and Eugenie. Eugenie is better positioned to weather this moment – she lives part-time in Portugal with her husband, she is less visible than her sister, and (imo) Eugenie has had one foot out the door of royal life for several years now. Beatrice, on the other hand, has historically enjoyed her parents’ contacts and she has involved herself in their disgraceful behavior. Well, one royalist is trying to help save the York princesses. From Richard Palmer’s piece in the i Newspaper:
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are expected to publicly distance themselves from their disgraced parents in the fallout over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The sisters – who are both said to be in shock amid lurid revelations about Prince Andrew and Sarah Feguson’s friendship with Epstein – want to remain loyal to their parents but wish to disentangle themselves from the toxic York brand, according to some royal insiders. But in private, the sisters have both been spending time with Andrew and Sarah, offering them solace amid ongoing revelations about their friendship with the late paedophile, according to those who know the family well.
“They’ve always been a very resilient family who support each other in times of crisis,” one friend said, denying rumours in royal circles over the weekend that the sisters had cut off contact with their parents. On Monday, Beatrice, 37, drove to see her parents at Royal Lodge as Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir – which details alleged sexual encounters with Andrew – hit the shelves.
As the elder daughter, Beatrice has been more involved in her parents’ affairs, offering advice to her father in particular, although her judgment has sometimes been called into question. She took notes for two hours when Andrew met the BBC Newsnight team in November 2019 and is reported to have advised him that agreeing to that ill-fated interview with Emily Maitlis would help clear the air. Beatrice has told friends, “I’m just numbed by it all,” as she struggles to process a succession of new revelations about her father.
Beatrice and Eugenie, 35, now face a difficult trick trying to navigate through the chaos left by their father’s enforced decision to give up using his Duke of York title and various honours. Andrew Lownie, whose biography Entitled gave a blistering account of the scandals surrounding Andrew and Sarah, believes Beatrice and Eugenie will have to try to distance themselves further now. “I think the sisters need to lie low until the dust has settled and to keep their hands clean,” he said. “They have their careers, families and charities.”
Professionally, however, it is in their interests to emphasise their connection to their uncle, King Charles, and the institution that has just heaped humiliation on their branch of the family. Being royal helps boost their profiles. The two Princesses, who occasionally attend royal events, both have business careers and receive no taxpayer-funded support. The King regards both Beatrice and Eugenie, who are respectively ninth and 12th in line to the throne, as blameless and has made it clear that they remain Princesses as the male-line grandchildren of a sovereign. Unlike Andrew and Sarah, they will be welcome to join the rest of the Royal Family at Sandringham for Christmas. “The King is fond of both of them and his intention is that they are unaffected,” one source said.
It’s like the royal reporters are trying to publicly convince Beatrice and Eugenie that they need to distance themselves from their parents, despite the royalists also knowing full well that Bea and Eugenie remain very close to Andrew and Sarah (they’re said to be especially close to Sarah, especially during and after her cancer battle). Well, at least one royalist is prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater – Amanda Platell devoted her Mail column to the princesses and how they need to be exiled from royal life as well.
After the disgraced Andrew and, by association, Fergie gave up their royal titles over links to the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein last week, the King and Prince William both made it clear that their daughters Beatrice and Eugenie will continue to be princesses – with all the trappings that royal blood brings. I – and I’m sure many others – am flabbergasted by the decision.
Why should we feel a shred of sympathy for the two pampered princesses who have lived their lives enjoying, unknowingly perhaps, vast privileges and wealth courtesy of their dishonoured father and his dodgy millionaire friends? And was this really the moment for Charles and his heir to go out on a limb for two non-working royals who have fed, like blue-blooded leeches, off their parents’ connections – and are now mothers and businesswomen in their own right? I think not.
Prince Andrew’s biographer Andrew Lownie, in his bombshell book Entitled, wrote that Beatrice and Eugenie ‘claim they’re modern princesses juggling jobs and children, but they’re just as entitled as their parents’. And he claimed that they, like their parents, have ‘shady’ connections to the super-rich of Saudi Arabia. Do the King and the Prince not realise that every time the public sees the pair, we are reminded of their awful, money-grubbing parents? Embracing them now only further damages their dwindling support, especially among young people – polls show of Generation Z, upon which the future of the Royal Family depends, only 30 per cent believe the monarchy is ‘good for Britain’.
King Charles and Prince William need a reality check: they must now go further and ban the princesses, as every time Beatrice and Eugenie appear in public they will again shine the spotlight on their family’s disgraceful legacy – and remind us that their father, still eighth in line to the throne, befriended a paedophile and then repeatedly lied about it. And, though the King and William might disagree, it is unthinkable to me that the princesses should be invited to the royal Christmas at Sandringham and the traditional walkabout after attending the Church of St Mary Magdalene.
Harsh it may be, but I feel little sympathy for Beatrice and Eugenie, however innocent they may be. They should be self-aware enough to know that their presence at any royal event would be a disastrous distraction – and serves no one but themselves. If, unlike their parents, they have a shred of decency and indeed care for the future of the Royal family, they could completely disappear from royal life and get on with their happy married lives and children and their successful businesses. That would be the appropriate way to show respect for the enduring pain suffered by Epstein’s young victims.
I mean… a broken clock, etc. Platell is heavy-handed, for sure, and I’m not prepared to put this much on Beatrice and Eugenie’s shoulders. Despite everything, I still have some sympathy for them and I can’t even imagine what it was like growing up with those ghastly parents. As I said, I think Eugenie has had the right idea for years now – she’s carved out her own life, away from the Windsors. She has a job, her husband works and makes a good salary, she lives abroad for part of the year. Beatrice is the one who wants to be accepted by the family, and she wants to be a working royal. And that’s not going to happen. PS… I always love how royalists treat “Sandringham Christmas” like it’s the most coveted invitation out there. Please. No one gives a sh-t.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Sarah’s social media and Eugenie’s social media.
- Queen Elizabeth II, during a reception to celebrate the work of The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust at Buckingham Palace, London. Where: London, , United Kingdom When: 29 Oct 2019 Credit: WENN/Avalon **WENN/Avalon**
- The Duke of York, Sarah, Duchess of York and their daughter Princess Beatrice during the wedding of Princess Eugenie to Jack Brooksbank, at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle.,Image: 534314437, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR SEVEN DAYS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: – / Avalon
- Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie The State Funeral of Her Majesty The Queen, Service, Westminster Abbey, London, UK – 19 Sep 2022,Image: 724168922, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: Tim Rooke/Shutterstock / Avalon
- 19/09/2022. London, United Kingdom. Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice at the State Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II at Westminster Abbey in London.,Image: 724204294, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Licenced to i-Images Picture Agency. All Rights Reserved. UK copyright law applies to all print & online publications. i-Images space rates apply to all images. Magazines contact agency for fees before use. Images Single use only then repro fees apply. Info@i-images.co Tel: 07860204379, Model Release: no, Credit line: Stephen Lock / i-Images / Avalon
- London, UK, 21 May 2024: Princess Eugenie (in red) and Princess Beatrice (in white) arrive for the Royal Garden Party organised by King Charles III at Buckingham Palace in London.,Image: 875183868, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Yui Mok / Avalon
- Princess Eugenie, centre, with her mother Sarah Ferguson, right, arrive for Easter Matins Service at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, England, Sunday, April 20, 2025.,Image: 990282093, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Pool, *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Kirsty Wigglesworth/Avalon
- The wedding of Princess Eugenie of York and Jack Brooksbank in Windsor,Image: 1030249391, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Princess Beatrice of York,Sarah Duchess of York,Sarah Ferguson, Credit line: John Rainford/Wenn/Avalon
- Platinum Jubilee Reception hosted by the Lord Mayor of London at Gulidhall Featuring: Princess Eugenie, Princess Beatrice Where: London, United Kingdom When: 03 Jun 2022 Credit: John Rainford/Cover Images **NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UK**
- The Sovereign’s Garden Party at Buckingham Palace, London Featuring: Princess Beatrice (left) and Princess Eugenie Where: London, United Kingdom When: 21 May 2024 Credit: PA Images/INSTARimages **NORTH AMERICA RIGHTS ONLY**
- The Royal Family attend day two of Royal Ascot 2024 at Ascot Racecourse on June 19, 2024 in Ascot, England Featuring: Princess Eugenie of York When: 19 Jun 2024 Credit: Cover Images
- The Royal Family attend day two of Royal Ascot 2024 at Ascot Racecourse Featuring: Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, Princess Beatrice, Sarah Duchess of York Where: Ascot, Royaume-uni When: 19 Jun 2024 Credit: Cover Images
This is absolutely going to hit Bea and Edo ALOT harder than it will Eugenie and Jack. As you said, they live in Portugal part time and they have carved out a life away from the British Royal Family but Edo is a climber and he’s LOVED being involved with the Windsors.
Astonishing how they all avoid mentioning that Beatrice and Eugenie are able to use their HRHs despite having never been ‘working royals’. Or that they have each lived and worked in the US. Or that both their husbands benefit from royal connections re: their own business activities 🤔
And no one points out that having people who are expected to maintain the status and illusion of “royalty” without any money or real role makes people hugely susceptible to “sponsorships” by all manner of millionaires and billionaires, as well as control and manipulation by the crown.
These royal “reporters” still love to talk about Harry and Meghan and their deals and money making ventures (I just caught a couple swipes in this month’s Town and Country Magazine – comparing them with Japan’s Princess Mako), but they were incredibly smart to figure out that they needed to be financially independent of that toxic family as soon as possible.
It’s really all about not letting the bi-racial wife not use her HRH. It is only an issue with Meghan and since she has been put at the top by marrying Harry everyone below that hierarchy will need to lose their titles so William will not appear racist.
Not just this, but these women have made their *own* trips abroad (mostly to the Saudis), and have had their own deals and God knows what else given to them. There’s no way they haven’t financially benefited from their horrendous parents. There is also, IMO, *no*friggin’*way* that they have gotten to their current ages, as adult women, and *NOT* known about their parents’ shady dealings and finances. They have eyes and ears to read and hear about all of this in the papers and on the news.
“Chosing” to not acknowledge it, that, is something *entirely* different.
@Yup, me It’s a horrible system that creates dependency and removes any autonomy you may have as an adult. Which is why I don’t understand why they act like it was sacrilegious that Harry and Meghan noped out of there. It’s a system that basically begs for you to do shady things.
Is there literally any adult that would agree to have their entire livelihood dependent on their older siblings whims? I’m pretty close to my siblings, and would never intentionally do anything to hurt them, and I still couldn’t imagine they would be okay with me deciding everything about their lives. Where they live, how much money they get per year, when they can take vacations, how often people can see their kids. And if they don’t do what I want, or if I’m just being an asshole, I get to cut off all of their money. Who would agree to this?
Meghan is so smart. She is building her brand and ventures on her name alone. She will always be MEGHAN. Take her husband’s titles away, and she will still be MEGHAN, just as Harry will always be HARRY.
No institution or bully (William) will ever take that from them.
I’m appalled that not even one person is correcting the false narrative that Andrew RELINQUISED his titles and honors. Andrew agreed to stop using said titles and honors but never used the word “relinquish”.
He sure had a lot of Instastories yesterday. He doesn’t post them regularly and when he does its one or two. Yesterday there were at least 10.
Edo is an opportunist. Imo. He ha d a pregnant fiancee that he broke up with. I wonder how he feels about his in laws
Edo’s son was born before he and his former fiancé broke up. Since she started an architecture firm in Hong Kong just before they broke up I don’t think she ever intended to marry him.
Only they know for sure. Bea’s boyfriend had dropped her after a ten year relationship. And she moved on quickly to Edo. I read that his fiancee was not happy with what happened whatever it was when they broke up. Edo’s ring was accepted by his then girlfriend
I do have some sympathy for the girls these are their parents after all who they love. It must be hard to realize just how depraved their parents are and to have to deal with the effects that are surely coming their way. Eugenie is probably the better off of the two because she lives away part of the year and has that place to go to for laying low. Beatrice as I remember encouraged her father to do that interview. Why she thought that would be a good thing is crazy.
I have some sympathy too for the reasons you’ve said. But I still think the only shock anyone feels is facing consequences. The girls knew exactly who their parents are and buy into the Windsor mindset of being above human law and decency.
Yes they are adults now and they have a very tough choice to make especially if they were loved and treated well by there parents. I had to remove myself from a toxic mother who wasn’t so loving and it wasn’t easy to do.
I have a 18 year old daughter and l know for a fact she would not of been in the same room at Epstein and Co.,and she would have been disgusted with me for having anything to do with someone , a lowlife like him. They both met him when he had been already convicted of heinous crimes. Epstein was even invited to their birthday parties ffk !!! . Even if her parents didn’t tell them the whole background story , someone would have, they made the decision to have Epstein
as s friend , a close friend, l think I’ve said enough !!!
This is what I don’t get.
They were old enough to say no thanks, I’m not going to visit some guy who just got out of jail for raping children.
Haven’t they been to the island?! They are witnesses themselves, complicit in their silence.
Yes, their parents are gross horrible people, but they are adult women who have made choices to not just stay silent in the face of abuse but to make a big show of support for the abusers.
As very young children they wouldn’t have known anything but I bet they got the icks & felt uncomfortable on those trips to the island. By their late teens, though, they’re old enough to read the papers (or whatever news source they prefer) & learn about their parents, their father & his good friend in particular. Maybe they love their parents, but this isn’t something that you can reconcile–it’s not just that dear ol’ mom & dad are grifters, but daddy dearest is a rapist & pedophile. This is just not something you can ignore & sit around the Christmas tree with them every year anyway.
You can’t choose your parents, but you can certainly cut ties with toxic parents and these two have very toxic parents, it’s time to make that cut. I have a feeling Peggy will be using articles like these to attack them for the next few months because he and his wife will be busy with holidays and Peg thinks this makes him look powerful plus it keeps the public distracted.
I certainly have sympathy for these two women. They did not choose their awful parents. But it’s certainly true that they have benefited from their royal status, as all royals do. Whether they choose to end all contact with their parents is a personal matter. However, if it’s true that they are offering “solace” to the creep and his ex, that shows an inability to read the damn room. They could try offering solace to the Epstein survivors. They’re the ones who need it. Andrew and his ditsy ex are just experiencing long overdue consequences for reprehensible actions. That’s called justice.
Where oh where is the justice for Charles and his rottweiler? It is so long overdue.
Karma is also justice! Charles ( and Saint Catherine too) must realize this. Maybe Charles is trying for redemption. Not so Madame. And her spouse too would do best to think, it’s coming for him too.
Respectfully disagree about Saint Catherine. She does not have the self awareness to realize that Karma comes for us all sooner or later.
I’m starting to think we’re watching the very beginnings of the crumbling of the British monarchy in real time. Pass the popcorn.
🍿🍿🍿 Here’s hoping you’re right!
Perhaps, or is this just an opportunity to elevate William and Kate as the saviours of the monarchy? We don’t know what is going on on behind the scenes.
PS I agree with Kaiser – again. B&E have always been criticised and compared to Saint Middleton. It is and remains most unfair and gratuitous. They seem to have taken it with good grace. As if having Andrew and Fergie as their parents wasn’t adequate punishment.
I never feel sorry for obscenely privileged persons. They will not be queuing up for food stamps and welfare. But it doesn’t mean that I am going to pile on more vitriol. They both seem like decent young women. They can’t help their privileged place in society any more than Harry can.
@convict W&K are too lazy and out of touch to run with it if this is a “set up to save”
I am increasingly convinced William is actively trying to end the monarchy. It’s a system he hates just as much as Harry and his is extremely jealous Harry had the opportunity to leave. He doesn’t want this for his kids.
Scooter believes his own publicity. imo. He would lose all the perks of being monarch if he dropped out. But if he keeps up his entitled laziness, it will backfire.
@convict, Absolutely these attacks on Beatrice and Eugenie have the approval of BP and KP. Otherwise the palaces would put a stop to them, threats of cutting off access to CC and WanK and all that.
Part of the huge deflection effort (together with the who-cares title abeyance and Royal Lodge), so nobody asks who’s been shielding Andrew all these years and how.
His mommy shielded Andy until the day she died. He got away with his immoral & illegal behaviors for most of his life thanks to the enabling of mummy Liz.
“Why should we feel a shred of sympathy for the two pampered princesses who have lived their lives enjoying, unknowingly perhaps, vast privileges and wealth courtesy of their dishonoured father and his dodgy millionaire friends? ”
I mean … I don’t disagree, but how on earth do you square that line with “but pampered prince William and his pampered wife are FINE!” If there’s no point to Beatrice and Eugenie, there’s no point to any of them. The republican logic is the only one that makes sense.
100%.
Right…..if they’re pampered and have lived off their connections and haven’t earned their privileges (all of which are true), then what’s to be said for W&K? For their children? Who paid for that yacht vacation? Their mustique vacations, or ski vacations etc? What kind of friends do they have?
B&E are easy targets because of their parents but the whole family is problematic when it comes to money, gifts, grifting, the whole lot of it.
I square it with – W&K are the next king and queen of the UK. If you’re going to have a monarchy, then privileges are extended to the heir.
I don’t think Beatrice and Eugenie are totally innocent, but, at the same time, I’m not sure how they could have disentangled themselves from their parents, given the protection Andrew was given by the palace. Going no-contact would have caused a flurry in the press and that’s exactly what BP was trying to avoid.
100%. And miss me with “They should be self-aware enough to know that their presence at any royal event would be a disastrous distraction” … from Kate’s wiglets? Agree the York sisters should skip the church walk, but not because the equally pampered Waleses need to soak up all the attention.
I have a theory: Bea and Eugenie were asked to step in and support W+K without pay, and they said no. Because these attacks aren’t needed. Focusing on Andrew is enough; it’s like they want more villains closer to home.
I hope these two see what their future will be like and avoid the spotlight. The fact that people have thrown their names into the ‘strip them of their titles’ bucket shows that no one is being protected except the working royals.
I agree. And I ask the same question on here all the time, who in the family actually likes William? Because if they are spoiled entitled, Blue blood princesses who have benefited from their parents shady dealings, what exactly is William and Kate? Why is it okay to exile them because of the dealings of their parents, when your actual heir to the throne has people living in moldy houses, doesn’t work, and has a parent that was taken garbage bags full of cash for dubious honors?
I knew eventually they were going to get their time in the barrel whether it was because of this stuff with their parents or not. There’s only so many people that can be working royals, and William is lazy. If you’ve noticed in the past year and a half or so, all the people that they claimed were going to constitute the new Fab four don’t seem to have much to do with him anymore. I think the shine went off for Peter and Zara, after their mom’s accident. And I think Eugenie realized a long time ago, if they could do what they did to Harry what chance did she have. Beatrice and her husband seem to be the only ones who thought that they would be treated kindly and fairly
Bea married a grifter who wouldn’t have looked at her twice if she didn’t have a title. Her brushes with employment were faint & she wanted to be a working royal, with perks. Eugenie actually took employment elsewhere & worked to distance herself from the RF sphere.
If Andrew does lose all new sources of money, he may look to his daughters and their husbands for financial help. Or Andrew or Sarah or both will move in with them. That won’t be great for Eugenie or Beatrice’s marriages.
Oh, dear, I bet they try. They need to be strong, though, and say no.
I feel as though the media discussing and in some cases, coming for the York princesses is driven by a few factors. And let’s be clear – the majority of this stuff happened when they were children, and they were punished for their parents actions in the media, by their peers and in their family. Also – as a family built on secrets and silence, I doubt very much they knew anything about any of this until they had to know. And I doubt what they were told in any way resembled the truth.
But the bottom line seems to be that it’s not actual outrage regarding Andrew. That’s not behind the hit piece. That woman’s screed said the women’s father’s sin was to “befriend a paedophile and lie about it”. No mention of the repeated rape if trafficked children. And she seems angrier at the princesses than at their scumbag parents.
Eugenie’s event with the Jordan Princess really pissed some people off. Time to shove them in their place using events and actions that their parents did and aren’t their fault in any way.
And let’s also be real. If the Queen had wanted, she could have had each of her children’s friends and acquaintances investigated and the individuals possible motives for the Royal connections revealed. The fact that fatally unintelligent, shallow, entitled and self centered Andrew was let loose to bumble through international society during a time when the royal family actually had pull and weight is appalling and frankly massively concerning regarding the judgement of the entire institution.
There is no way British intelligence didn’t know and didn’t inform the Queen. She thought the world would never change and he would be protected by money and the media and the “girls” would remain silent out of shame that wasn’t theirs.
How did they not have minders and handlers?!? How were their excesses not curbed, how were they not taught literally anything about money management?
And lastly – if both Andrew and Fergie were given jobs that kept them well and truly busy and engaged as well as been paid for their “service to the crown”, and shady potential connections smothered before they could take root – if there had been actual structure and accountability and not just – oh do try not to get caught again, lamb chop – as money was meted out to the “right” people so they simply learned that all of their mistakes would be fixed in the media and with enough money so really “keep calm and carry on as you please, mummy has you”.
Philip and QE2’s horrific parenting – which was the standard style of care in aristocratic circles – lead to this entire mess. From the treatment of Harry pre Meghan to the treatment of them both- Andrew always took the fall for Charles. Hell- those pics or videos or whatever of Fergie that led to Andrew and her divorce were likely leaked by Charles to protect himself. And it also knocked Fergie off any pedestal the public had put her on due to her relationship with Diana, thereby nullifying her options and ability to be seen as anything but a joke.
Hmmm. Interesting to think that Eugenie’s event with the Jordanian princess could have ticked some people off. That might be true. We all wondered how there was no event with Kate when there was one with Eugenie.
The statement that Andrew’s sin was to “befriend a paedophile and lie about it” hit me too. It seems like she’s trying to minimize Andrew’s sex crimes. He wasn’t just friends with Epstein. According to Virginia’s book, he knowingly and repeatedly raped underage, trafficked girls. Why isn’t he being charged for that? I don’t think he has diplomatic immunity. What about Charles looking the other way and covering for him all these years?
Extremely unfortunately, I believe the age of consent in Britain is 16. Virginia was 17 at the time. So my understanding is that Andrew hasn’t done anything criminal in Britain at least (I’d love to be proven wrong). He could be prosecuted in the US where the age of consent is 18.
Andrew has committed plenty of moral crimes, however: he must have known that Virginia was trafficked; and he befriended a pedo and known trafficker, and lied about it multiple times. And the BRF have committed moral crimes by shielding and financing him.
This has nothing to do with “age of consent” (yes, I’ve heard this excuse from many Brits) and everything to do with the fact that Virginia was TRAFFICKED. Even if she had been 50 years old, as long as she was trafficked, having sex with ( = actually raping a victim of trafficking) is a crime – in many countries, including the UK.
Trafficking victims cannot “consent” to their treatment. It is a crime.
Not only was Virginia trafficked but she wasn’t the only one. In an excerpt from her book she says that the third time with Andrew it was an orgy with her and eight girls who looked underage and couldn’t speak English.
Gah! Echoing @Magdalena’s words: there is no consent in trafficking! None whatsoever!!!! It’s rape. Period.
And there’s no single age of consent in the US; like so many things, it depends on the state.
And wanted to add, ‘nothing criminal in Britain’??? Are you kidding me?? How about fraud, money laundering, accept bribes, obtaining Virginia’s SSN & DOB to have her investigated. Geez Louise!
It varies by state.
Fergie still cheated. Things started downhill after Eugenie was born.
Andrew Lownie has been all over the talk shows and podcasts saying, “I told you so,” that Andrew and Sarah are “Bonnie and Clyde” and that Beatrice and Eugenie were up to their necks in their parents’ shady deals. He said he’s got a few hundred more pages which he thought might have been too strong to be included, but now he’ll be adding them to the paperback edition.
Weren’t these same people saying that Beatrice and Eugenie should become working royals a few months ago?
Probably. 🙄
Im actually surprised they are coming after Bea and Eugenie this hard. Feels like even more stuff is coming and maybe not just about Andrew. They need even more people to throw under the bus (not that it isn’t deserved it’s just interesting when protection is removed).
Eugenie had an event with the Jordan Princess during her visit. I can’t help but feel like some of this is payback.
That their very presence is so abhorrent because it reminds people of their father.
What about William? He called his mother paranoid and silenced her after death. He used the media to attack his brother and as his human shield before Meghan. And then used the media to try to drive Meghan to take her own life. That’s beyond abhorrent.
Not to mention Kate. Hateful and bullying and cruel. And deeply happily racist. Allowed painful lies to propagate and destroy Meghan’s mental health. Used her whiteness as a weapon. That’s revolting and reprehensible.
What about Charles? His involvement with Diana led directly to her death. That’s abhorrent beyond measure. He made his children march through throngs of people behind their mother’s casket and never got them any emotional support. That’s revolting and sheer neglect.
Camilla was also complicit in Diana’s end. Yet she’s shoved in our faces all the time. Appalling.
He was very unkind to Diana the whole time. He had photo ops with his sons after Diana died (the “great dad” PR). Then he used them to promote Camilla beginning less than a year after their mother died. And he remains a bad father and grandfather.
Interesting that you mention Crocmilla. With Bea and Eugenie and their families gone along with Pedo and Fergie, plenty of room the Parker-Bowles klan to be front and center. All they need is a few titles and boom!
So what events do Bea and Eugenie even go to? The Christmas walk, maybe Kate’s Carole thing, and a garden party or two right? I’m not sure I super care whether they show up to those things? I just don’t. Now would I like to see Andrew investigated? Yeah, that I care about.
Right? I don’t need to see Beatrice or Eugenie on the Christmas walk. And almost nobody watches Kate’s carols thing. But I wouldn’t mind if they show up for Christmas dinner, without their parents, at Sandringham.
But yeah, please investigate Andrew. Thank you.
So I actually mean if they show up and do the Christmas walk, I still don’t care, LOL. Show up. Don’t show up. It doesn’t matter to me if the York princesses do that walk. It matters to me if Andrew is investigated. If they aint doing that then whatever to the rest of it.
Beatrice shows up to the opening of an envelope, Eugenie not so much. One year the DM pointed out that Bea as an adult had taken 11 money-no-object vacations in less than 6 months, it was covered here. It’s not criminal but it is peak royal privilege. Does anyone need multiple days of Ascot, multiple English garden parties, multiple days at Glastonbury, etc? If the Sussexes tried that the rota would never shut up about it.
They used to be on her all the time for her vacations. I seem to recall they were mostly long weekend or holiday weekend type excursions, something a lot of people do, even us non-rich, non-royal types.
They used to be at Trooping all the time, back when QEII had the whole big family. Christmas & Easter. (I cannot believe those are considered work events!) Various jubilee related events. Garden parties. Ascot. (Again, cannot believe attending parties & horse racing is considered work!). Remembrance Day event.
Gunning for Beatrice and Eugenie and forcing them out of the royal family and public eye, and stripping their titles despite their innocence, makes it easier to justify stripping Harry and his family’s too. Now, you may argue that the media doesn’t need an excuse to go after them, and they obviously don’t, but when it comes to tangible things like getting MPs to debate the situation in parliament and take action, it’s easier to lump them all in together. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Kents and Gloucesters get pulled in as well in a much larger clean sweep of the extended family.
Bingo. There is more at play than just Andrew’s abhorrent conduct. There is a devious undercurrent of protecting the King and William.
A Bill will be put before the commons this week, or next, to confer power on the monarch to remove dukedoms. IMO, that is not incidental. It is a deliberate strategy.
Agree with this
The parliament would be stupid to let any monarch decide when they can remove titles. It should remain as a decision of parliament where at least some of them are elected.
Oh wow, that would get even more abusive then for how the monarch could treat any of their family members. One day when Louis grows up, his dad can just threaten to remove his hrh. And look, the titles are silly anyways, but I can’t see that being a good thing for family relations.
I don’t think this will pass. It will put titles at risk, at the whim of the monarch.
This theory about stripping Harry’s dukedom at the same time, or setting up William to do it later, could be 100% correct. That said, I’m not so sure William and Charles want parliamentary action and any investigation into the BRF and Andrew’s finances that might come with that. Instead, William and Charles wanted us to be satisfied with how they got Andrew to stop using his titles, and which of them is doing the title abeyance thing better. Charles’ statement on the subject even said that parliamentary action to formally strip the titles would distract Parliament.
And Andrew has some other titles, too, so why stop at dukedoms? Why not give the monarch the power to strip Viscounts and Earls and Barons, so Andrew will no longer be Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh? That might stick in the craw of some in Parliament, though. And there are plenty of titled aristocrats who don’t do any royal work and no longer even have seats in Lords–could they be affected at some future time, and would their aristocratic buddies who still have seats in the Lords agree to this?
Also, I read somewhere that Harry’s dukedom is different because he’s a royal prince, so it’s unremovable? But I, or that source, could be wrong.
Anyway, lots of questions, and I wouldn’t rule out anything.
I think Harry and Andrew are Royal Dukes which is different from say, Duke of Westminster. I assume this discussion is about all the titles other than Prince. They can be already be stripped by Parliament for literal treason (eg German princes who also happened be Princes of Ireland and Great Britain or Dukes of British territories during WWI who served on the German side in the war… they all remained German Princes btw) but even that is arguably discretionary because the Duke of Windsor was not stripped of his Dukedom for treason and in fact was allowed to live abroad with an allowance and security and it was all covered up. Back when people fully accepted that the title is a label for a relationship to the monarch and not a UK plc company car that you only get for ‘working’ and have to give back if you stop ‘working’.
An unpopular opinion I am sure but the reasoning of the titles deprivation act is that the person has taken up arms against the monarch or the state? Not that they committed a crime against other individuals? Harry’s actions are arguably closer to treason than Andrew’s, to be clear I am not saying they are treason but just that He very publically fell out with Charles (now monarch) and Andrew didn’t.
I’m really uneasy with the idea that Charles and William have any kind of responsibility to carry out justice in general. I feel Andrew’s title is only relevant to the extent it shields him from the kind of scrutiny anyone else would be subject to under these circumstances (although he’s one of only 6 or 7 of Epstein’s associates constantly reported on now, it has to be said) but how can they remove that without removing it from all of them? Incidentally, I can’t see thay Harry’s titles shield him and his family from scrutiny so there would be no point from my point of view, in removing his.
Charles authorized this not scooter
Bea showed very poor judgement re the whole Maitlis arrangement & interview, but she managed to get away with it as her father’s interview was SO bad.
Wonder what the Palace and British media are hiding about the York princesses? If they haven’t done anything wrong, then I don’t think it is fair for them to be dragged. BUT if they have… ?
“The sins of the father” can and does impact future generations of the family. However innocent the may be, they still inherit the blow to the family reputation.
I’m saving ALL of my sympathy for the girls trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell.
Bea and Eugenie will survive. If this is the beginning of the end for the monarchy, it will be justice for the way the real victims here have been discarded and ignored by people in the institution, starting with QEII.
If William also made it clear that Beatrice and Eugenie were to keep their titles then he cannot take away Archie and Lilibet’s, all four are grandchildren through the male line of a Monarch, and their parents are not working royals. Mind you, I have read somewhere that William intends to take away B & E’s titles. So the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.
While the glaring unfairness, and racism, of taking away Archie and Lili’s princely titles and HRHs (without removing them from all non-heir male-line grandchildren of a monarch) has, I think, stopped Charles from doing so, unfortunately, I really don’t think William gives a cr*p about optics when it comes to his brother’s bi-racial children. I’m sure it galls him to no end that Harry’s children have the same titles as his.
I’m not someone who thinks family has to cut someone off in their private lives because of bad or criminal behavior. I know someone who is in touch with their brother while not defending him publicly at all. She sees it as helping him not fall back into that life.
Charles and William are so into their own egotistical head games that they don’t see the danger of allowing the rota to decide who is and isn’t a worthy member of the royal family. Either it’s by blood or it’s not. And if it’s not, none of these fools are who the British public would choose as a titular head of state.
Yes. And at least the U.K. is lumbered with the royals due to hereditary succession – a ridiculous concept but there we are – rather than freely choosing an even worse specimen in trump. After already seeing four years of him in action.
This seems like deflection from real accountability by the royals. Why have they blocked inquiries into Andrew and even deleted records? How is he still being funded? I feel like Platell’s screeds are all about shielding William, because he was quite happy to drive Andrew to church, have him at family events while briefing how much he hates his brother and SIL. The York sisters have their own ethical issues but using them while not really questioning how much the King and heir have covered for Andrew, is so obviously a stitch up.
Please, if taking money from dodgy interests in the Middle East and Eastern Europe was enough for banishment both Charles and William ought to be gone. Charles is the one taking money in Harrods’ bags from a bin Laden. Claiming it goes into their personal foundations is just a laundering operation.
Setting aside the question of Bea and Eug’s place in the new order: What the hell is WRONG with this Platell C U Next Tuesday? Has she ever written anything nice about anyone?
Yes, Kate, after writing all about how KP yelled at her for being mean about her.
LOL. But she was totally taking the mickey then wasn’t she?
I find it disturbing that Amanda Platell should write what is essentially a totally vicious piece about Beatrice and Eugenie, who are widely seen as innocents in their parents’ disgrace.
I wonder what motivated her – jealousy of two attractive young women half her age, or a not to be missed opportunity just to be vicious? AP has form for sour attacks on younger more attractive women: a UK newsreader, Natasha Kaplinsky, was the focus of AP’s bitterness for years.
Sux for them… they should all disappear
I see that 4 days after Prince Andrew said he would no longer use his Duke etc titles so as not be a ‘distraction’ there are still constant stories about the the family formally known as the Yorks (aka the Yorks) on the Daily Mail’s front page (it’s been said don’t pay attention to the Daily Mail but if you are interested in the UK and what’s happening in the UK you have no choice because it’s the best selling newspaper in the country and actually widely read and influential).
The idea posited by AP that these individuals should be punished for ‘distracting’ is a bit too rich for my blood, I’m afraid. The UK media chose to ignore Andrew and his children for years and they are choosing (and will *always* choose) to report this kind of story over the Duchess of Gloucester opening a village fete. They would do so even if the Yorks (yep, I’m still calling them that) were all Mountbatten-Windsors living in a semi-detached in Wokingham. Because now it’s a Fall-From-Grace story! Same as how they chase the Sussexes around, they are not interested in duty, only drama (even if the drama is all projected).
Andrew had a trade envoy post and like Charles, William and his daughters continue to do, spent a lot of time buttering up wealthy notables especially in the middle east. William and Charles, like Eugenie and Beatrice and also Queen Elizabeth, are all the dreaded half out half in the sense that they have commercial interests and personal interests which mean that can use all the opportunities afforded by the platform they have through accident of birth to varying degrees to enrich themselves? Jared and Ivanka are the same and guess what? They have no titles, it’s the position they were given that allowed them to do it. And did the fact that Trump was no longer President prevent his son-in-law and daughter, even during his interregnum, benefitting from the connections made during his first term? No. Likewise, it’s too late to remove the Yorks’ connections and make them less exposed people.
What the British have to learn from this is more scrutiny and governmental oversight is required for those in the job AND especially those LIKE CHARLES who can actually trade off between their personal interest and the national one in a way that damages the national interest. That the family are not role models has hopefully been evident for some time but of course they’ve been deploying ‘one bad egg’ propaganda for a while now. I’d draw a distinction between just using the opportunity afforded to self-enrich (as Queen Elizabeth did all the time) and possibly endangering the national interest (like her parents, as the previous Duke and Duchess of York, did, IMO) From William’s point of view the best thing he can do is get his head down and wait until it blows over. I don’t see the point in disinviting his uncle from their Christmas outings, I really don’t. It would underline that William treats ‘being a family’ as part of the job he does unless it relates to his own children and even then still, to an extent. A dark route to go down, IMO, If any of those kids do bad or fall out favour with the public. Also, Christmas is a time of forgiveness and redemption?
It’s been repeated frequently over last weekend that Beatrice and Eugenie remain Princesses because they were the granddaughters of the monarch through the male line which I’m relieved to see. Lilli and Archie aren’t just Harry and Meghan’s children, they are Charles’ grandchildren and that’s why they have titles, not, as I saw on Reddit recently “because their mother procured these for them”. Even if Harry had done something which warranted getting ‘stripped of his title’ (or effectively stripped) it shouldn’t affect his kid’s titles. But what you are supposed to do with disgraced Princes etc of your own family is behead or exile them. Stripping of title I think is just a meaningless idea, especially since people will still use their titles like they use Kanye instead of Ye and especially since here there are no property rights, eg in York or Sussex, attached.
I like how one rat says B&E should use their royal connections for their work & the other says how ghastly it is that B&E use their royal connections for their work.
I also think it’s rich trying to tar the reputations of the pedo’s daughters while at the same time distancing him from his brother & that brother’s heir. As if they don’t have shady connections. 🙄
Chuck and Peggy have the stench of the pedos crimes all over them because they are the two most powerful royals still alive who were involved in the cover up, and they are still covering for him masquerading it as punishment. So of course they will blame and attack the daughters
I feel bad for them as well. They were born into it, I’m sure they know what’s been happening, sure, but they’ve been controlled, used and abused by family members and psycho govt men to mold and refrain narratives they desire.
They threaten and abuse those that step out of line. Mentally must be v hard, but you have the trappings of luxury and inherited wealth to keep it bearable.