Future role of the York sisters | Other Current Members of the British Royal Family | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Future role of the York sisters
October 23, 2016
7:07 am
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1398
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

According to The Express, Prince Andrew and Prince Charles are involved in a dispute over the roles Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will play in the royal family.  Prince Charles wants a streamlined royal family with only himself, his wife, his sons and their wives.  Prince Andrew wants Beatrice and Eugenie to carry out full-time royal duties supported by the Sovereign Grant.  This is not a new dispute, but it appears to me that it might be an effort to get things finally settled before the eventual deaths of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Express: Queen at centre of royal storm as Prince of Wales and brother Andrew in royal conflict

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

October 23, 2016
11:44 am
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 977
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Do we always trust the express?

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

October 23, 2016
2:21 pm
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1398
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Prof H said
Do we always trust the express?  

From doing the royal news at this website, I've noticed that the Express usually has royalty stories a day late.  This story seems to be appearing in the Express first, so it will interesting to see if it turns out to be true. In the summer, the Express reported that Princess Eugenie was getting married, but there has yet to be an announcement. However, as I said above, this story about the role of the York sisters is not a new story.  The topic has come up before with Charles and Andrew taking the same opinions as the current Express story.

Looking at the chart below of the total number of engagements undertaken by each of the 15 members of Royal Family who do engagements in 2015, can the BRF afford not to have Beatrice and Eugenie as working royals? Charles, his wife, his sons and their wives amount to only seven working royals.

 

Image Enlarger

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

October 23, 2016
6:45 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 977
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

 I did wondering at the absence of the Earl and Countess of Wessex in Charles' putative streamlined royal family. It's always cast as a feud between Charles and Andrew. Sophie Wessex is extremely close to her mother in law.  Edward works hard.  Their children get more granny time at their ages that Anne's and Charles' did.  

I can see trimming our the Kent and Gloucester grandchildren except for really big occasions but for opening kindergartens and working the troubled teens, there ould seem to be a need of more than C/C/M/DOE/William, who works part time/Catherine who has small children, but who seems to be learning her role well,and the ever-present PR.  Anne's scare last month might have indicated she will eventually have to settled down just a trifle.

I'm not sure how much of a real issue this is and I still wonder if it stems from the earlier attempt to deprive the York princesses of their titles.

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

October 24, 2016
11:18 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Gloucesters and Kents are still working, maybe at a lower profile--but they are still working.

TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Kent
HRH Princess Alexandra
TRH Prince and Princess Michael

The younger members of those families (listed above) don't have any royal duties; they aren't usually seen except at the larger events, such as coronations.

The adults at the top of the succession:
Charles and Camilla
William and Catherine
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice and Eugenie
Edward and Sophie
Anne and Timothy
Peter and Autumn
Zara and Michael

Peter and Zara have no royal duties, either.  There has been little or no mention of what James and Louise will be doing as they get older.  And Harry may eventually marry and have children.  Charles may find some pushback if he tries anything like lifting the HRH from his brothers' children.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

October 30, 2016
2:36 pm
Avatar
shay

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 449
Member Since:
January 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

During the Jubilee celebration, only HM, Charles, Camilla, Harry, William and Kate were on the balcony.  It has been said that Charles orchestrated it that way on purpose.  

Note:  Philip was absent because of illness.

Shay
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

October 30, 2016
9:18 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

shay said
During the Jubilee celebration, only HM, Charles, Camilla, Harry, William and Kate were on the balcony.  It has been said that Charles orchestrated it that way on purpose.  

Note:  Philip was absent because of illness.  

Interesting, as it is HM--not Charles--who decides on precedence.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

November 6, 2016
6:40 pm
Avatar
Emperor

Emperor
Forum Posts: 55
Member Since:
September 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't know.  This story keeps coming up.  Kind of like when Charles wanted to be "George VII" when he comes to the throne.

 

I take these with a big grain of salt.

November 6, 2016
7:28 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Emperor said
I don't know.  This story keeps coming up.  Kind of like when Charles wanted to be "George VII" when he comes to the throne.

I take these with a big grain of salt.  

Charles might have a economic case for wanting to streamline the Royal Family.  But the Gloucesters and Kents are getting up in years, and their children (as well as those of Alexandra and Anne) will be considered "extended family" (non-HRH).  

The list will sort itself out by simple attrition.  As George V's 1917 LP applies to the current Royal Family:

*The current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (Richard and Edward) are grandsons of George V.  Their successors and their siblings are non-HRH.

*Alexandra's children are non-HRH (since their father was not an HRH).

*Anne's children are non-HRH (for the same reason).

*Should Beatrice and Eugene marry in HM's lifetime, their HRH status will be determined by who the Princesses marry (and that will be interesting, since they will no longer be required to ask HM's permission under the new succession rules).

*Should Harry marry in HM's lifetime, their children will be Lord and Lady (as great-grandchildren of the sovereign),unless HM issues an LP otherwise.

*Whether the Wessex children (James and Louise) decide to take on the HRH they are legally entitled to (as grandchildren of the soverieign) remains to be seen.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

November 7, 2016
6:43 pm
Avatar
CyrilSebastian

Knight/Dame
Members
Forum Posts: 681
Member Since:
November 30, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Is there a certain age that James and Louise have to be in order to decide about the HRH?

November 7, 2016
8:53 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

CyrilSebastian said
Is there a certain age that James and Louise have to be in order to decide about the HRH?  

A good question--and one that, hopefully, one more versed in the legalities can answer.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

November 8, 2016
10:20 am
Avatar
shay

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 449
Member Since:
January 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HM also has the option of a LP allowing the Duke of York's title to be inherited by Beatrice in the same manner that Alexandra inherited the Duke of Fife's title in 1912.

Shay
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

November 9, 2016
9:43 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 977
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The regnant of the Fife dukedom came when "it was clear" there would be no male children (and was made after Maud's father became king).  Andrew was born after his mother was already king (as were his daughters).  I doubt the girls will lose their HRH.  They both have have university degrees and have tried jobs at various agencies.  They are not much different than the young "Lady Diana Spencer" in the days before her marriage to Prince Charles.  There are plenty of young women with much too much money.  Their Parents buy them flats, they have substantial allowances, they really float around London having a good time.

 

Eugenie and Beatrice are not on the civil list.  Their expenses are paid by their father.  Yes, they should probably take on a royal role especially as the rest of the family grows older.  I am not sure Charles is keeping them out of the family or Andrew wants them to have a bigger role.  There is no evidence that there is difficulty between them and the rest of their family.  Eugenie has tried to give her grandmother one of her "dorkier' to replace the last of cookies.  They seem like a reasonably close family.

It seems this "feud" between Charles and Andrew rests on the photop on the Queen' 90th birthday and a lot of tabloid storm und    d rang.

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

November 10, 2016
2:40 am
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

shay said
HM also has the option of a LP allowing the Duke of York's title to be inherited by Beatrice in the same manner that Alexandra inherited the Duke of Fife's title in 1912.  

There is that possibility.  As you've correctly noted, it's been done before.  

In Alexandra's case (the 1889 creation of the title), her parents had a son in 1890--but little Alistair was stillborn.  When the Duke had been upgraded from Earl Duff to the 1st Duke of Fife in 1900, the standard remainder was to "heirs male lawfully begotten."  The 1900 re-creation allowed Alexandra to inherit, and then Maud.

Another such case is the Mountbatten Earldom.  As Louis Mountbatten (a younger son of the 1st Marquess of Milford Haven) advanced in titles, the Letters Patent were written to allow his eldest daughter (Patricia) to succeed.  She is now the 2nd Countess Mountbatten; her eldest son (Norton, 8th Baron Brabourne) will inherit the title.

In order for Beatrice to inherit the York title, HM would have to do what Victoria did for the Fife Dukedom--a second LP recreating the title, but worded to allow Beatrice and her children to inherit.  

As to official duties, it's not that Andrew wants his daughters to assume more duties.  He wants them to have the same status as Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, and the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent--working Royals.    As male-line grandchildren of the Queen, the daughters are HRH--but how their children are styled will depend on who they marry (as was the case with Anne and Alexandra).

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

November 10, 2016
7:11 am
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1398
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

All of the examples of female succession mentioned above concern titles that are non-royal. I doubt that the Duke of York title will ever be given to Beatrice. Since the 15th century, it has usually been given to the second sons of monarchs. I would imagine that for tradition's sake, the title would be reserved for this purpose. It does not appear that this would be the case with the current royal family unless the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a second son and Prince Andrew, the current holder of the title, is deceased.  

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

November 10, 2016
3:16 pm
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 571
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Prof H said
The regnant of the Fife dukedom came when "it was clear" there would be no male children (and was made after Maud's father became king).  Andrew was born after his mother was already king (as were his daughters).    

The second title was granted in April 1900 by Queen Victoria.  Edward didn't come to the throne until January 1901.

November 10, 2016
4:41 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 977
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

On another sidetone to this, how did anyone know, as the regnant of the Fife title aways specified that it was obvious the couple would not have a son.  True, there first three children, including the stillborn Alistair, were born within the first three years of their marriage.  It took seven years for Louise's sister Maud to produce her first child (and no outdated turkey baster rumors please).  

Unless Fife's adventures in the Paris brothels had left him sterile or there was better obstetrical knowledge in 1900 than I thought, someone seemed to have been taking a big leap here.  It could be that the remainder to allow the title to descend through the female line was simply a precaution, not one based on absolute knowledge that Maud would have no more children.  (Which of course she didn't).

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

November 10, 2016
5:42 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said
All of the examples of female succession mentioned above concern titles that are non-royal. I doubt that the Duke of York title will ever be given to Beatrice. Since the 15th century, it has usually been given to the second sons of monarchs. I would imagine that for tradition's sake, the title would be reserved for this purpose. It does not appear that this would be the case with the current royal family unless the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a second son and Prince Andrew, the current holder of the title, is deceased.    

It seems that whenever the York title is granted, the holder either becomes a sovereign or dies without heirs.  Andrew has little chance of becoming King, as he has five people ahead of him (Charles, William, George, Charlotte, and Harry).

 

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 10, 2016
8:46 am
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1398
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

December 9, 2016: "There is "no truth" in press claims of a split in the Royal Family over the future roles of Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, the Duke of York has said."

BBC: Prince Andrew denies rift over daughters Eugenie and Beatrice

Text of the Duke of York's statement:

Over the past few weeks a number of stories have been run in various newspapers that have no basis of fact and the most recent, relating to my daughters, requires correction to terminate further speculation and innuendo.

To clarify: It is a complete fabrication to suggest I have asked for any future husbands of the Princesses to have titles. There is no truth to the story that there could be a split between The Prince of Wales and I over my daughters' participation as members of the Royal Family and any continued speculation is pointless.

As a father, my wish for my daughters is for them is to be modern working young women, who happen to be Members of the Royal Family, and I am delighted to see them building their careers. When they do support the Royal Family in its work this is very much appreciated by my Family and most importantly by those organisations and to those for whom their participation makes such a difference to their lives.

Whilst I appreciate, as Granddaughters of The Queen, there is considerable interest in my daughters, I cannot continue to stand by and have the media speculate on their futures based on my purported interventions, which are completely made up and an invention.

– DUKE OF YORK

The Duke of York's statement can be seen at http://static.ow.ly/docs/AY_5F3g.pdf

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 10, 2016
10:39 am
Avatar
shay

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 449
Member Since:
January 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A few weeks ago Prince Harry makes a statement about his girlfriend, now Prince Andrew makes a statement about his daughters.  I can't imagine things like this happening 10 or 20 years ago.  The RF usually just ignored the press and went on their merry way.

Shay
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

December 10, 2016
12:03 pm
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1398
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

shay said
A few weeks ago Prince Harry makes a statement about his girlfriend, now Prince Andrew makes a statement about his daughters.  I can't imagine things like this happening 10 or 20 years ago.  The RF usually just ignored the press and went on their merry way.  

In today's media, news stories seem to take on a life of their own. 10-20 years ago, social media was not what it is today. Stories, factual and erroneous, spread like wildfire.  I can't blame either Prince Harry or Prince Andrew for making statements.

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 11, 2016
1:29 am
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't think we even HAD social media (or maybe we should call it "anti-social media") 20 years ago.

We've had blabloids for as long as I can remember.  

Has there been any times before now when a BRF has challenged the press?

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 11, 2016
8:04 am
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1398
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Gidzmo said
I don't think we even HAD social media (or maybe we should call it "anti-social media") 20 years ago.

AOL with message boards and chatrooms was around.  I became a royalty AOL community leader in 1998, monitoring message boards, hosting chats and writing content. The anniversary of Diana's death was always awful on the message boards as AOL would feature it on their main page with a link to the message boards.  We would get tons of posts from trolls who posted awful stuff that had to be removed. On the Queen Mother's 100th birthday, the message boards had over 10,000 posts.

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 11, 2016
5:06 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1065
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said

Gidzmo said
I don't think we even HAD social media (or maybe we should call it "anti-social media") 20 years ago.

AOL with message boards and chatrooms was around.  I became a royalty AOL community leader in 1998, monitoring message boards, hosting chats and writing content. The anniversary of Diana's death was always awful on the message boards as AOL would feature it on their main page with a link to the message boards.  We would get tons of posts from trolls who posted awful stuff that had to be removed. On the Queen Mother's 100th birthday, the message boards had over 10,000 posts.  

I remember our days on AOL.  You and the other moderators had your hands quite full removing inappropriate posts on a regular basis.  Some though Charles ineligible for the throne because he married Camilla (perhaps applying the views of 1936 to present-day).  

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 11, 2016
7:21 pm
Avatar
shay

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 449
Member Since:
January 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said

Gidzmo said
I don't think we even HAD social media (or maybe we should call it "anti-social media") 20 years ago.

AOL with message boards and chatrooms was around.  I became a royalty AOL community leader in 1998, monitoring message boards, hosting chats and writing content. The anniversary of Diana's death was always awful on the message boards as AOL would feature it on their main page with a link to the message boards.  We would get tons of posts from trolls who posted awful stuff that had to be removed. On the Queen Mother's 100th birthday, the message boards had over 10,000 posts.  

I was on maternity leave on the QM 100th birthday, and remember the AOL message boards being abuzz with posts from people not understanding royal succession.  Some saying Charles would be skipped over in favor of his son William in becoming king.  Others saying HM would retire and Charles would become king within a year.

Shay
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 100

Currently Online: Susan
12 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 5418

Moderators: 1

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 18

Forums: 52

Topics: 1206

Posts: 7697

Newest Members:

malindagq16, joesm69, jeffol1, gabrieliw2, Josephpab, Mauricewaw, marvinzz1, englisTub, jamivk1, asaroju

Moderators: Prof H: 977

Administrators: Emperor: 55, Scott: 571, Susan: 1398