Since Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, the York princesses have been very low-key. Which is the right move – just sit back and see what unfolds, don’t try to make anything happen. Unlike the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice actually have a vested interest in keeping their royal positions and titles. Beatrice more than Eugenie, but make no mistake, both women want to be princesses and HRHs. It’s more than likely that their father will be further demoted in some way by King Charles III, but it doesn’t follow that Charles will change the arrangement Beatrice and Eugenie had with QEII. Basically, Bea and Eugenie have the titles and royal styling but they have jobs and are not considered “working royals.” They don’t even have royal protection. So what will Charles do? Nothing or something? From Ephraim Hardcastle’s Mail column:
Will Queen Margrethe of Denmark’s drastic slimming down of her royal family – removing titles from four of her grandchildren – inspire King Charles to grasp the nettle and scrap Andrew’s HRH status? He is in a bind. If he formally takes away his brother’s HRH, he would have to amend the letters patent to either exempt Beatrice and Eugenie or separately create them HRHs.
Charles has been impressed by how they have built careers ‘wearing their royalty lightly’ and wouldn’t want to upset them. It’s possible that the virtues of the daughters could cover the sins of the father.
My theory is that Charles won’t bother stripping Andrew and his daughters of anything for the foreseeable future. Right now, Charles can control and manage Andrew. If Andrew steps out of line, then sure, KC3 will punish him AND the York princesses. So what would that look like?
A royal expert has claimed King Charles III may strip Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of their titles despite being ninth and eleventh in line to the throne. Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital Prince Andrew’s two daughters may become the next casualties of the King’s plans to slim-down the monarchy.
“Unfortunately for Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, their father’s conduct has had rather an adverse and actually disastrous impact on their royal futures,” she said. “The Princesses are most likely to become Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugenie since their father, Prince Andrew’s, sexual assault scandal has purportedly poured ruin on their chances of becoming working royals.”
Ms Fordwich claimed Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie “retaining their titles is highly dubious” because Charles “is predicted to be making the use of titles more restrictive”.
So… yeah, I don’t know. Is it possible that next year, maybe after the coronation, Charles will do a major rollout of a new Letters Patent and he’ll “take away” a lot of HRH royal stylings and actual royal titles? Maybe. I doubt it will all hinge on how much Charles cares about his nieces though. Meaning, Beatrice needs to start making plans for her post-royal life. Eugenie already started – I hope Eugenie has her feet kicked up in Portugal right now.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- London, United Kingdom -18/09/2022. Princess Beatrice is seen in a car as it follows the cortčge of the late Queen Elizabeth the II is pulled past the Houses of Parliament after her funeral at Westminster Abbey, Westminster.,Image: 724154475, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, Model Release: no, Credit line: Joshua Bratt / 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
-
- Princess Beatrice and Eugenie follow the funeral procession of Queen Elizabeth II as it makes its way along the Mall, London, UK on September 19, 2022,Image: 724183880, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: James Shaw / 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
-
- Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie The State Funeral of Her Majesty The Queen, Gun Carriage Procession, Wellington Roundabout, London, UK – 19 Sep 2022,Image: 724224617, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, Model Release: no, Credit line: Anthony Harvey/Shutterstock / Avalon
It’s really the only leverage KC3 the petty has over them, so I think he’ll just wait them out. Also no way are the Wessex’ getting DoE.
He doesn’t need leverage over Bea and Eugenie. The leverage over PA is housing and money. Andrew has already proven that money means more than B&E by involving them in his scandals.
When Harry and Meghan left, the royals didnt reduce their spending to reflect the reduction of working royals. The cost went up. Charles just wants more money for himself, Camilla and the Wales. What’s the point slimming the monarchy if the costs keep rising? Less bang for the buck.
Titles don’t matter. Reducing the spend and the grants do. Fewer working royals should mean less money stolen each year from taxpayers to support your lifestyle. If that doesn’t happen, this is all smoke and mirrors.
And trimming down the costs basically has nothing to do with stripping the titles of people who weren’t on the public purse to begin with. This whole slimmed down monarchy nonsense is just to make extra sure nobody but the people closest to the crown— that is people highest up in the line of succession— can claim any royal privileges. Security, housing etc.
The York sisters don’t get any money from the crown since they are not working royals. Stripping them of their titles would have no impact on how much the monarchy spends.
Spot on!
But it takes away excuses as to WHY the royal family takes so much money from the public. If the monarchy was slimmed down and there is even less excuse for their greed and selfishness, it might motivate people to get rid of the monarchy, which is long over due. That’s a good thing
As someone on twitter pointed out, if royal titles can be taken away, that shows how meaningless they are in the first place. Imagine being born “royal” but by the time you die you’re just another “subject”. And it’s pretty gross for anyone to suggest that the two daughters should be punished for their father’s crimes.
Speaking of how meaningless titles are, I’m in the US, and a few weeks ago, was trying to buy a gift online from Fortnum & Mason. I about died when I saw the dropdown list of all the ways you could address yourself.
It had the usual “Mr.,” Mrs.”, etc., but you could also choose from a bunch of way funnier (to me, as a mere American peasant!) salutations.
I’ve ordered from the UK before, and once, had the package addressed to “Lady Lorelei” purely for my own amusement, lol, but I was surprised that on Fortnum & Mason, “HRH” is literally one of the options. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that one before?
F&M does have a royal warrant, but still, it seemed really strange to me. Given how much we’ve heard recently about the importance of which title members of the BRF are born with or are “granted” by the monarch, specifically w/r/t the Sussexes and Andrew, I was slightly shocked to see it listed as one of the options.
British Celebitches: is it typical that any old peasant can decide to have their orders delivered to “HRH John Smith” or whatever? I totally realize this is just an online shopping site and is of *zero* importance, but still, did not expect “HRH” to be so readily available to the public.
I ended up not placing the order since they don’t ship what I needed to the US, but if you want a laugh, I recommend looking at that dropdown menu sometime.
Among tons of others, you can choose Brigadier, Dame, The Lady, The Lord, Lt. Colonel, Reverend Mother (?), The Marquess, the Marchioness, The Most Revd, The Venerable, Viscount, Viscountess, and Wing Commander.
If it wasn’t so expensive, I would have ordered something addressed to my son as “Captain” or “Colonel” just to be funny. (Obviously none of this is new or exciting to our British celebitches, but as an American, I found it hilarious!)
Anyway, I just thought it was so funny given all of the warring and hand-wringing over titles going on over there recently.
Signed,
HRH Lorelei
Oh no! and now I am off to Fortnum & Mason to order some really overpriced food with my new title
My uncle and my Dad had an ongoing joke where my uncle would subscribe to mailing lists and magazines for my Dad. Anytime anything came addressed to Colonel William [Last Name], we knew it was from my uncle Billy! 🙂 My Dad was never in the service, and certainly not a colonel!
Fun fact: the Saudi Royal Family has approximately 15 thousand members titled Prince or Princess. Sons, daughters, and patrilineal grandsons and granddaughters of Ibn Saud are referred to by the style “His/Her Royal Highness” (HRH), and safely number in the hundreds. Those belonging to the cadet branches are called “His/Her Highness” (HH), and make up the remaining 14k+.
There are also a lot of other still-extant titles in still-reigning monarchies that get HRH, and even more still-extant titles from deposed monarchies that still claim the HRH.
I’m going to insist on one and all in my life to refer to me from now on as “The Lady Reverend Mother Viscountess Wing Commander”
I mean as long as you can chooose why not shoot for the moon? 🤷😆
😹 thanks for the tip – hilarious! I may have to find myself something on the site for shits & giggles.
XO – Kittenmom, Marchioness of Nothing
@Lorelei that made my day! Wing Commander, LOL
If you google become a scottish lord you will find a couple of sites offering to sell you a plot of land, in some kind of trust arrangement you don’t actually own the land, which is apparently all it takes to become a Lord or Lady in Scotland.
@Brassy Rebel: Your last sentence is what I was about to write. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie NOT retaining their titles is highly dubious because:
– It would sound as Charles’ public acknowledgement of Andrew’s guilt.
– The Queen probably made Chuck swear, on her death bed, that he would protect her favorite son and his daughters.
– Stripping Bea & Euge of their titles out of the blue would raise an outcry. The measure would be so unpopular people would throw tomatoes at the new old king. It would be an unnecessary reminder of how inhumane Charles can be to women since Diana.
So it would be surprising if he stripped B&E because they are “ninth and eleventh” in line to the throne but not shocking if he strips his own grandchildren who are sixth and seventh?
Yeah, make it make sense!
They’re white.
I wonder what the sisters real back story is and hope we come know about it.
@southern fried
SAME!
Yes, agreed. I hope that some day Beatrice and Eugenie are given the freedom to tell the truth about their childhoods.
Ironically it could be Charles stripping them of their HRH and princess titles that might allow them to talk.
This is the media giving KC3 the cover he needs to go after his son, Harry whom they now hate.
Their behaviour is reminiscent of spurned narcissistic.
They will continue to blame Meghan, but realising that Harry loathes their business practices.
It wouldn’t be surprising if they try to destroy him? They are openly rooting for the Sussexes to fail, while being very envious.
If Charles111 uses this suggestion, where would the poor use of power as the weaponized removal of titles, insignia etc lead.
But what would the slimmed down monarchy look like?
Most importantly would the general public care for a dysfunctional monarchy as distraction from the slide into fascism?
Time will tell. In the meanwhile…..
Charles is going to find himself very lonely on his throne. Makes you wonder what Christmas will be like. I doubt any member of that family has any real affection for like they did the Queen. They only deal with him because he holds the power and the purse strings. And once he starts stripping titles, cutting off allowances and kicking people out of their residences, they’ll turn on him one by one.
Say what you will about the Queen, but she made great use of her cousins and inspired loyalty. I mean, even Harry and Meghan remained loyal to her to the very end. You can’t say the same about Charles.
Charles is completely twisting himself in knots trying to justify taking away Archie and Lili titles. He’s creating problems where none exist. He’s spent his life waiting for this job, and now that he has it, he’s spending the first weeks of his monarchy capital on crap like this.
Another observation concerning the York sisters due to a recent Dimbleby article about the BBC’S fear of the royals.
Under the headline, I noticed in a particular post that someone from the family demanded that the BBC do not point the cameras on Eugenie and Beatrice during the airing of the late Queen’s funeral.
The is the third instance since Prince Philip that there is a degratory item when they supported Harry on instagram.
The first article of the other two instances was about the exclusion of the Yorks and possibly Harry in the allocation of some the Crown Estates when the Queen dies, this was written by Dan Wootton.
The last article in no particular order is about the disparaging statement about once more allocation of cheap seats for the Yorks and Harry for the upcoming coronation, from daily beast.
What is this pattern alluding to? Does shared DNA and/or nurture have any role with identity? self identity?
If so, stripping the labels mean stripping nature or stripping nurture?
Or has it been reduced to a punitive measure as a means to control or to hide one’s true intentions ?
It always comes out in the wash.
Charles won’t take a away the York girls titles or Andrew he can easily control Andrew is Broken and basically at the mercy of Charles .
Not only that, but Anne isn’t going to live forever, Edward and Sophie are not exactly must-see TV, Buttons and Pegs are lazy and their kids are a decade or more away from active duty. CK3 will need one if not both of them to represent The Firm once the older generation fades.
@Dutch, I giggled at “must-see tv” 😂
Those girls spend a boatload on their clothes-particularly Beatrice. I am sure the money came from the Queen via their father. Those days are gone-so I think regardless of whether Charles does something official, things behind the scenes are definitely different.
Kind of wonder if KC3 will strip them of their titles just so it will look more fair and less racist if he strips Archie and Lilibet.
I think this is what he’s thinking. But he will will have to strip everybody who’s non-working as cover. Some of them will not take it lightly.
That’s true but I’m not sure Charles cares. I can see him taking the Sussexes and the York girls titles and every other non working royal. Assuming he won’t touch Charlotte and Louis but the fact that they’re not the heirs and presumably won’t be working royals is an issue. Or it will be at some point. Bc they’re titles don’t fit a slimmed down monarchy of just the heir if that’s the direction he takes.
Eugenie is an opportunistic and coward. She did not talk or interact with Meghan at the funeral. She also never interacted with Meghan at Royal Ascot in 2018. She is afraid of publicly showing her support for Meghan at that “family” events.
I think you have the wrong sister — Eugenie and Meghan were friendly before Harry even came into Meghan’s life. She spoke about it during the Oprah interview.
I know what Meghan said about Eugenie. But Meghan is too nice. Eugenie has never interacted with Meghan at the events they have attended together over the past years. She is a coward.
@ROAA — so the trip Eugenie and her husband made to visit the Sussexes in Montecito and the photos of them having a congenial lunch together were faked? Formal events like the ones they’ve been at together (weddings, funerals, church services) are not opportunities to hug and kiss and have a good old chin wag. Yes, Meghan is nice but she’s also honest.
Eugenie is the only family that we know of that has bothered to visit them in California. And she has given them shout outs on her IG, beyond the little dry acknowledgments that the others give. And here is the thing: Anyone who supports the Sussexes will become a target of the UK press, no matter how minor the association. In this case Eugenie has not only herself and husband to worry about but her deadbeat parents. So I’m sure Harry and Meghan have told her to lay low and don’t risk it, they know how she feels.
By “the funeral” do you mean where Eugenie was mourning her grandmother? Yes, how dare she take time to actually mourn. She was visibly crying and I’m sure that optics were the last thing on her mind. Didn’t we also see her and Beatrice get up in the middle of the ceremony and be ushered out (that was also one of the clips the firm made BBC delete)? I’m not sure if they came back after that or what the reason for that was, but accusing her of not being Meghan’s friend at her own grandmother’s funeral seems a bit much.
I can’t speak to ascot 2018, but Eugenie posted a lovely birthday message for Meghan and supported her 40×40 initiative, and they were also quite friendly at the jubilee which I’m sure helped Meghan feel more at ease. This entire post is about how precarious the circumstances surrounding Beatrice and Eugenie have become, and I can only imagine it’s even more tenuous behind the scenes. Your dismay seems to be based on viewing Eugenie as having carte blanche to speak truth to power and throw herself in the line of fire on Meghan’s behalf, and I just don’t think that’s the reality and I don’t even think Meghan would want her friend to make herself a target like that.
All this, Eugenie was friends with Meghan and she and jack were at the Halloween party in Toronto when the press broke the news of Harry and Meghan dating. Meghan spoke well of the York’s in the Oprah interview and it’s obvious harry is close to Eugenie. The other one, doubtful imo.
Why does everything have to be about Meghan? She’s not the center point of the family.
Charles would be really vindictive to strip the York sisters. Their Princess titles die with them and if they are not on the Sovereign Grant or receive money from his Duchy then what is he really “saving”. It’s seems like stripping of titles should be pretty low on Charles’s agenda but then again he gets mad at ink pens, so there you go.
There is no basis for the York sisters to keep their HRH if it is removed from Archie and Lili. The grandchildren of the monarch rank higher than the nieces of the monarch regardless of where they reside. (And no one is Catholic).
If Charles decides to issue a letters patent removing the HRH from Archie and Lili, he will have to do it to everyone else below them in rank. Otherwise it will look racist.
He has to be ready to strip titles from the Rent a Kents, the Gloucesters, the Duke/Duchess of Kents, the Yorks, remove the HRH in abeyance from Louise and James. All of that to justify removing the HRHs from Prince Archie and Princess Lili. I think Sandringham will be quite a lonely place for Christmas if he does all that. Perhaps this is Charles’s vision of “destroying the family in order to save it.”
So long as none of the non-working royals are getting public money, who cares if they’re called Prince, or Duke, or Highness, or Excellency, or anything else. Why take away HRHs that are going to die out anyway? The children of the Yorks won’t be HRHs. The children of the Sussexes won’t be HRHs–the Sussex dukedom will become a noble title in 2 generations anyway. The smart move is to leave the status quo in terms of titles, tighten the purse strings, and get on with things. Hanging titles over the heads of biracial children isn’t a good look for anyone. The value of those titles is symbolic, not monetary. Taking titles away is already an established thing that happens in Denmark, apparently–it doesn’t happen in the UK. Taking the titles from the Yorks as a way to “justify” taking titles from the Sussex babies is just petty and cruel, but petty and cruel seems to be the mo of the Windsors these days.
I never get tired of “Rent-a-Kents” — it’s funny every time
I think KC3 has it wrong. There may have been too many royals on the balcony for a few years, but if royals appearing on a balcony are reduced to 4 adults and 3 children then they will be very boring and of little interest. Although he craves being the center of attention so for him the fewer included the better. As others above have noted, the slimming down needs to be costs, not head count.
@Lizzie, agreed. Charles has been talking about the “slimmed-down” monarchy since forever, but it was always predicated on Harry and his eventual wife being working royals.
He’s really backed himself into a corner with his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Oh well, guess he shouldn’t have behaved like such a raging prick. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The need for a “slimmed down monarchy” should have been the Kents, Gloucester, Alexandra, etc. The ones where you’re like, WHO?? Those random old people that get to live in a palace? That we pay for??
Let the Yorks cut ribbons in pretty clothes and bring their cute kids to the balcony once a year. Let there be a little Prince and Princess in America that you publicly support and protect.
If Charles still wants people to GAF about the monarchy and care for the next 10-20 years of his reign, THAT’S where the attention is. Get credit for slimming down and keep the interesting ones around.
As I said on the Danish posts that retroactively removing titles feels like a punishment even if it isn’t. If Charles is really insistent on having less royals because it “looks” better then as @Becks1 suggested once, let them keep them legally and say they won’t use their HRH going forward including in official communications.
I see that no one is asking will the slimmed down monarchy cost the taxpayers less? I mean it should but they’re also careful to not talk about that aspect of Charles’ plan.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. The York Princesses and the Sussex family aren’t costing anyone money. Stripping them of titles is just for show so it looks like he’s attempting to “save” money. Maybe they should just actually do some give backs ,people will take them seriously then.
All these meaningless cosmetic moves. Titles don’t cost money. It is the duchy of Lancaster and duchy of Cornwall that deprive the treasury of the income earned because the income goes to Charles and William respectively. It is about 20 million pounds from each duchy per year.
I want to know the tea behind Eugene and Beatrice leaving the church service before it ended. Something happened.
They both did? I thought just Bea did.
I didn’t think it was a big deal, perhaps they were emotional, but it was one of the clips the RF asked to be removed from the BBC taping.
They and the Duchess of Gloucester were brought to the front of the Abbey so they would be able to get into cars bringing them to the small ceremony at Wellington Arch where the casket was removed from being drawn by the sailors to the hearse which would bring the casket to Windsor. Since they were to be at that ceremony, but not in the procession after the casket leaving the Abbey, they needed to be in position. Look at the pictures and you’ll see that the Duchess of Gloucester was escorted with them. Nothing to do with their emotions – everything to do with timing.
The DM says that Charles has a 100 days’ strategy so he may not wait until the coronation to make changes.
I don’t get the impression Bea is more interested in being a working royal than Eugenie. Because she attended a few fun events? She didn’t rep the Queen at anything. She showed up to the garden parties and that’s it. I think both sisters know they won’t be asked to work and don’t expect to.
As for leaving the service early, there are any number of reasons why they got up. Eugenie looked devastated through the mourning period and Bea broke down after the internment. They were close to their grandmother like Harry.
The person most affected by Elizabeth´s death is Edo IMO…he was having such a good time attending all these ” family events” with his wife and being photographed. I mean, I am sure Chuck will send invites to his nieces, but they will be most probably kept at arms length…
Maybe Beatrice can comvince Chuck she can do the bread and butter engagements Elizabeth´s aging cousins did before? This is the only wayI think that Chuck would not take their HRH away NOW- in the long run, of course he will.
He always struck me as a bit sketchy and the weird poem he posted when Liz died just sealed it for me. I’m putting him and mike tindall in the same grifting box
I think it depends on how much KC3 wants to strip the Sussex kids. I think the only way he can do it without looking racist is stripping the York girls as well.
Thought same.
JCallas, and Edward’s daughter and son.
Hello!
i don’t usually comment on these stories, but i do honestly wonder at Charles taking this step, not because of the younger generation, but because those older than he. Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester) and his wife have been working royals since forever and do hundreds of visits a year. The same is true of Princess Alexandra (Hon. Lady Ogilvy). Now, I don’t think anyone would care if Prince Michael of Kent and that wife of his were stripped, but I could hear QE2 screaming from the heavens if Charles stripped Richard and Alexandra of their HRH’s.
Yes, it’s a bit unfair to remove the titles and HRH status from the Kents and Gloucesters given the amount of royal duties they have done. Personally, I would let them keep their titles but once they pass away, the titles are retired rather than passed on to their heirs.
The Kent and Gloucester heirs will inherit the ducal titles, but will not be styled as princes (that’s already established). So the current Earl of Ulster will be His Grace, the 3rd Duke of Gloucester- and his son (he has one, he was at the funeral) the 4th etc. if the line fails, it will revert to the crown. The same holds true for the Duke of Kent’s son the Earl of St. Andrews (who also has a son, who should inherit eventually.) But neither are or will be royal and have never done any royal duties. They just work like anyone else.
@Ohso exactly and that’s why this talk of removing HRHs is so stupid and such a waste of PR capital on Charles’ part. The only future HRHs who are coming down the line are from George and Louis and their sons. Archie and Lili’s children won’t be HRH, none of the Kent’s and Gloucesters are HRH after the current dukes/duchesses and Prince Michael. James Wessex’s children wont be HRH.
The current “problem” of too many HRHs is going to die off, literally, in a generation or two, besides George and Louis, their children, and then George’s grandchildren. If Charles is serious about limiting who has HRH and wants to redo the 1917 convention, he’s going to have to come after those two, particularly Louis. They wont lose HRH themselves but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I think people see all those people up on the balcony- and QEII liked to have not just her working cousins, but all their children and also grandchildren up there as well as Anne’s and Margaret’s children who were never royal — and some people thought “oh my God – we’re paying for ALL THESE PEOPLE.” And of course they were not paying for them.
Charles may not be taking away their title but I think they have been advised that they will no longer get funding or funding will severely cut. Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester has put his childhood home on the market for five million pounds.
The minute Uncle UpChuck snatched my title, I’d be on the phone to Simon & Schuster (or some such) negotiating my tell-all. I wouldn’t care if I had to dip into every memory I had to make him look terrible, and he would. I’d make bank off that petty bitch, and I’d be pleased.
Then, I’d start a podcast.
Hmmm, kinda like Harry and Meghan?
Well, gee, Harry did not give me a draft of his book to read, so I have no idea what he’s writing about. He is a far finer person than I am, so I could not hazard a guess as to whether he will spill the tea on his disgusting, cheating father, as I would.
Titles aside, it seems everyone and their dog is a ‘royal expert’ these days.
(And in many cases, the dogs would do a better job.)
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/david-dimbleby-bbc-royal-family-b2197618.html
Here you are.
Ummm if he continues down this path, there are only going to be 3 working Royals in 20 yrs. If only the heir are working it’s going to be w&k and George. How useless will they be?
I have noticed for years that Eugenie seems to be the most “authentic” of the current grandchildren of QEII (aside from H & M). My heart is cold as stone but I wept at the comments she posted after her grandfather, the DofE died. I could tell that they were not smooth press releases; she wrote them. Again, she wrote something very moving when her grandmother died. I’ve never seen anything particular human or humane from the rest of the bunch. Princess Euge had some major health issues growing up that may have humanized her.
The Royals have a crazy gene pool–really crazy—but you can find some intelligence and humility in the rubble. Jack also seems much more like a regular guy than the Italian count, or the thuggish Tindall.
My two cents? This “stripping titles” business is the media’s latest obsession for sure. Whether it is being fed by BP remains to be seen but it could just be the media creating drama because they are tired of writing about Meghan’s ? bathrooms (is it around 34 now?)
“Charles has been impressed by how they have built careers ‘wearing their royalty lightly’ and wouldn’t want to upset them.”
So Chuckie Three is impressed by their work ethic, but not his son’s. His son, who has gone off and made his own money and his own career… oh, right, because he was supposed to stay and be the patsy. Ugh. These people. #AbolishTheMonarchy
If they want to keep the monarchy slim, why isn’t there discussion of removing Charlotte and Louis’ titles as well? If they want to keep it limited to the heirs, then only George should technically have a title. Seems pointless for them to strip Charlotte and Louis when they are adults and George has children who will be part of the slimmed down monarchy.
Charles should leave well alone. Stripping titles and residences from the children and grandchildren of kings and queens with no notice will come back at him.
The Kent’s and Gloucester’s are old and will pass in good time. Their children aren’t royal, and work for a living.
He’s trying to fix something that isn’t broken. The passage of time will take care of it.
What he should stop is the creation of royal dukes. That creates all the Hrh’s, and