Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 60   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Princess Eugenie News  (Read 144096 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1084

Offline Offline

Posts: 4122





Ignore
« Reply #840 on: October 19, 2020, 10:32:35 AM »

Well just random thoughts building off a multi decade downsizing idea. 


As for baby Brooksbank...

XXXX Sarah Nicola Brooksbank has a very nice flow to it.  As does XXX George Andrew Brooksbank.  Just as long as the ďrightĒ first name is chosen.  The strike me as a family oriented couple so I could definitely see them using their parents names as middle names...especially for their first child.
Logged
perdie

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 1015

Offline Offline

Posts: 1756





Ignore
« Reply #841 on: October 19, 2020, 12:52:02 PM »

Fair enough.  Full disclaimer...I have planted my feet with regards to most of this.  I'm a stubborn girl that way and will probably never be dissuaded from my beliefs but I can respect that we all have different thoughts on these topics.  As always luvcharles, your knowledge is incredible.

Update...I was saying all the KP stuff as part of a longer transition plan not just kicking everyone to the curb tomorrow.  And the Sandringham bit was a random thought given that it's barely used now and that I can't see Charles using it all that much given how he prefers Scotland for the holiday season.  I think I was also remembering old articles about either Balmoral or Sandringham's tourist numbers not covering the expenses...so basically running at a lose.  Sure that's not the taxpayer's issue but it's also not sustainable.  That was more a random thought.

I have to admit, I was posting partly as a devil's advocate thing.  But I will say this: I'm not against the slimming down of the monarchy and 5 years ago would not be arguing for the Yorks, but Charles saw himself and his siblings being followed by his sons & their spouses.  That now is not going to happen.  I think that slimming down, to potentially just William and Kate as their kids would be too young, will be too drastic for people's expectations.  I disagree fundamentally with the existence of royalty, but if it is there, it should be exploited fully.  Get the value out of them.  Make sure the entire country gets visits and attention.  (I don't personally agree with being patrons and never visiting, but if those charities benefit from that arrangement and want it to continue, then do still put names to charities.)  Open hospitals.  Visit fishing villages from Shetland to the Scillies.  Visit charities both large and small.  There is work enough to include the Yorks on even a part-time basis, and they seem to be two pleasant people who could do this well without making a huge fuss about it.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1084

Offline Offline

Posts: 4122





Ignore
« Reply #842 on: October 19, 2020, 02:31:59 PM »

Fair enough.  Full disclaimer...I have planted my feet with regards to most of this.  I'm a stubborn girl that way and will probably never be dissuaded from my beliefs but I can respect that we all have different thoughts on these topics.  As always luvcharles, your knowledge is incredible.

Update...I was saying all the KP stuff as part of a longer transition plan not just kicking everyone to the curb tomorrow.  And the Sandringham bit was a random thought given that it's barely used now and that I can't see Charles using it all that much given how he prefers Scotland for the holiday season.  I think I was also remembering old articles about either Balmoral or Sandringham's tourist numbers not covering the expenses...so basically running at a lose.  Sure that's not the taxpayer's issue but it's also not sustainable.  That was more a random thought.

I have to admit, I was posting partly as a devil's advocate thing.  But I will say this: I'm not against the slimming down of the monarchy and 5 years ago would not be arguing for the Yorks, but Charles saw himself and his siblings being followed by his sons & their spouses.  That now is not going to happen.  I think that slimming down, to potentially just William and Kate as their kids would be too young, will be too drastic for people's expectations.  I disagree fundamentally with the existence of royalty, but if it is there, it should be exploited fully.  Get the value out of them.  Make sure the entire country gets visits and attention.  (I don't personally agree with being patrons and never visiting, but if those charities benefit from that arrangement and want it to continue, then do still put names to charities.)  Open hospitals.  Visit fishing villages from Shetland to the Scillies.  Visit charities both large and small.  There is work enough to include the Yorks on even a part-time basis, and they seem to be two pleasant people who could do this well without making a huge fuss about it.

I love playing devilís advocate...and probably has a touch of that myself so one more thought and then I promise Iíll go back to my corner.  Sometimes I get the impression that the thought is that Beatrice and Eugenie could pick up all the slack thatís been left which is easily some 500 engagements a year before add Philips numbers and adjusting for William and Catherine increase since 2017...just to keep doing thousands of engagements a year.  But, why should the thought be that they should be busting their butts so William can focus on his passion projects and Catherine can be a hands on mom (with her own passion projects).  Arenít they entitled to the same leniency that the Cambridges are getting?  If so it could be another decade before theyíve built their respective families and all their kids are in school. So why is there so much support for them to leave their jobs and save the monarchy when itís easily another decade before they should be expected to carry out a medium-heavy schedule.  By the time theyíd be expected to be doing more William and Catherine would be approaching theyíre 20th anniversary and the Cambridge kids would be 17, 15, and 13 so William and Catherine will be expected to be doing 300-500 engagements each in addition to support 1-2 major passion projects.

Iím all for Beatrice and Eugenie supporting charities on their own time, and for that support to be recognized in the CC.  Iíd also love to see them at larger events like state banquets, for no other reason than weíd get more tiaras.  But sometimes the FT working royal idea floated around not just here but other forums and in the media, just doesnít make sense.  And I really donít want either Beatrice or Eugenie to get the workshy press that the Cambridges got when they were part time (and William had his part time pilot job).  Lord knows the media will go at both of them like crazy.

Now...maybe the BRF will never get to just the sovereign and heirs working but with three kids that would still mean that the roster in Williamís reign (and towards the very end of Charlesís) could be 6-8 adults (assuming George is married and depending on what Charlotte and Louisís spouses do).  Sure thatís less than 15 but that might be ok.

Thereís also a good chance that Iím overly cynical about the whole thing with a combination of overly optimistic about the effects of fewer working royals.  Itís a vile combination.

Ok Iím sure that some people are done with this and with my thoughts on this so Iím going to try really hard to return to my corner.  I might just PM people who want to continue the discussion.
Logged
Chandrasekhi

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 708

Offline Offline

Vanuatu Vanuatu

Posts: 2820


...


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #843 on: October 19, 2020, 07:12:20 PM »

A thesis: Plebs may be willing to pay a premium for political stability. If it takes the form a constitutional monarchy, it may be tolerated for as long as the premium is not considered excessive, privileges within reason and the monarchy empathetic to the plight of the common man. (What is playing out in the Dutch Royal Family now may be perceived as a break in the social contract). As long as the above conditions are met, the view of the monarchy remains favorable.

Patronages seem to be an essential part of the social contract between the BRF and the citizens of the UK.  If visibility is the currency of the BRF Charles' focus on slimming down the monarch as a cost cutting exercise may increase its profitability and ensure its demise at the same time. As an institution, the BRF requires re-imagining. W&K are really onto something with consolidation of charities under an "umbrella"  cause and linking their patronages. If it were to developed further, it could resemble a networked organization.  The cause is patronized and by extension the associated organizations. Networks could be further formed between umbrella patronages to form dense interconnections that benefit constantly from the patronage of the cause. The BRF becomes further professionalised with a smaller contingent of royals.



Bea and Eug have it in them to be the best full-tome royals of their generation but I hope this is not the road they choose to travel. Their lives are in a sweet spot: they are financially independent, can take on their passion projects ( Beer OC), have businessmen husbands who don't need it but could benefit from the royal connection without their affairs being scrutinized because of their marriages to full-time royals i.e the kind of scrutiny Chris O'Neill received.

ITA, OC, it's is essentially a dead-end for them. The Madeleine Model would be a better fit: they could take on one of the "umbrella patronages" or individual patronages if they so wished without it dictating the course of their lives.
Logged

ďDo or do not. There is no try.Ē

Ė Yoda
Lady Liebe

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 623

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 3060


Northern Parula




Ignore
« Reply #844 on: October 19, 2020, 08:04:24 PM »

I see Eugenie and Bea, if they choose to do so, filling the gap between the Glouscesters and Kents and W&K's children stepping up into full time duties. I have a feeling William and Kate will want their children to take their own sweet time before settling in to work, much as William did. To my mind, there will be a need for extra hands. Anne is seventy, and while I can see her going strong into her nineties, she will have to slow down eventually, and why should she not? The same will apply to Ed and Sophie eventually.

I think Louise would do fine also, if it's something she would choose to do. James is a cypher as yet.

As to housing, Sandringham and Balmoral are off the table as they are personal possessions of the Monarch. Kensington and St. James function well as they are, and if Charles and Camilla choose to stay on at Clarence House it will mean that, barring certain functions, Buck House can be open for tours much of the year, just as Windsor Castle is. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think anything is written in stone as to how the Monarchy is to go on. Charles and William both know circumstances can change in an instant, things once planned left in flux and new arrangements then need to be thought out.

At the heart of it, the Firm is a family, and the BRF no less, after all.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 08:09:32 PM by Lady Liebe » Logged

"Let us remember that, as much has been given us, much will be expected from us, and that true homage comes from the heart as well as from the lips, and shows itself in deeds."

Theodore Roosevelt
jolene

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 214

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 972





Ignore
« Reply #845 on: October 21, 2020, 10:31:42 PM »

I know Eugenie and Bea both have HRH titles and some make it sound like it messed up their lives? I'm getting a little OT (couldn't find a similar thread), but having an HRH doesn't mean they can't do a regular 9-5 job, right? Anne and Edward didn't give their kids titles, but they're still royal and in line. I get a bit confused about all of this or is the issue more of how Ferg and Andy raised the sisters?
Logged
ralf103

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 1002

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2114





Ignore
« Reply #846 on: October 21, 2020, 10:44:28 PM »

Having a HRH doesn't stop them having normal jobs, both girls have had "normal" jobs and Edward and Sophie both attempted to run their own businesses while having HRH, likewise Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all worked for the armed forces while holding HRHs.

 
Logged
GoodGollyMissMolly

Small Member
****

Reputation: 217

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 536





Ignore
« Reply #847 on: November 21, 2020, 12:54:28 AM »

Never mind.
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1517

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 9550





Ignore
« Reply #848 on: November 21, 2020, 01:18:16 AM »

Jack and Eugenie moved into Toad Manor?
Logged
Aubiette

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 309

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1089





Ignore
« Reply #849 on: November 21, 2020, 01:55:14 AM »

Jack and Eugenie moved into Toad Manor?

Apparently. This makes zero sense to me but itís impossible to talk about on here without mentioning the unmentionables.
Logged
jolene

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 214

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 972





Ignore
« Reply #850 on: November 21, 2020, 02:06:00 AM »

Jack and Eugenie moved into Toad Manor?

Apparently. This makes zero sense to me but itís impossible to talk about on here without mentioning the unmentionables.
I can't help myself (I love "O Brother, Where Art Thou?").
Logged
Hester
Board Helper
Warned
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2412

Offline Offline

Samoa Samoa

Posts: 13017





Ignore
« Reply #851 on: November 21, 2020, 03:56:24 AM »

Obvious face-saving is obvious!
Logged
tsarinya

Small Member
****

Reputation: 142

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 452





Ignore
« Reply #852 on: November 21, 2020, 05:10:54 AM »

The Daily Mail headline was that they were given the house by their cousins. But surely it would be up to the Queen to decide that?
If itís true though, lucky them. I recently furnished house with top spec appliances. Canít be bad!
Logged
Princess MS

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 513

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2378





Ignore
« Reply #853 on: November 21, 2020, 08:16:23 AM »

The Daily Mail headline was that they were given the house by their cousins. But surely it would be up to the Queen to decide that?
If itís true though, lucky them. I recently furnished house with top spec appliances. Canít be bad!
.

I imagine that they are "house sitting" for an agreed amount of time (and possibility covering some of the "rent" of the property) . Her cousin does not own the property so cannot give it away or reassign the Crown Lease it would be on - except to a widow or children as per the standard arrangements. Not sure that he could enter into any commercial agreement without the Queen agreeing. More likely it is seen as better to have the house occupied by a family member who wants to escape London while pregnant. But who knows - all conjecture - especially on the part of the DM
Logged
Hester
Board Helper
Warned
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2412

Offline Offline

Samoa Samoa

Posts: 13017





Ignore
« Reply #854 on: November 21, 2020, 08:19:33 AM »

I suspect Harry was told he would be giving up the house, and was being given the face-saving public excuse that his cousin would be living there. I can't see the Queen organizing a temporary home for Eugenie, Jack and bub.

Harry will REALLY be feeling the loss of a real old English house, as he looks around his vulgar stone-veneer McMansion.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 60   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: