To Top

Queen denies granddaughters working royal roles

A recent matter that has been debated on social media and with a poll taken by Royal Central regarding whether Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice should become full-time, working royals has been denied by Her Majesty. This has left their father, Prince Andrew furious. He believes Eugenie and Beatrice should be seen as equals to Princes William and Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge.

As Royal Central reported a few days ago, Prince Andrew wrote his mother himself, demanding his daughters be made full-time, working royals and be given accommodations at Kensington Palace. This row between the Duke of York and his brother, the Prince of Wales over the public roles of the two princesses has caused great tension between them.

A royal source told The Sun: “Andrew has always wanted his daughters to be full-time royals. He sees it as a slight on him and them if they are not. But Charles calls the shots and he wants the Royal Family giving value for money.”

Another source confided that Prince Andrew: “Believes his daughters are being overshadowed by William, Kate, and Harry, and it will get worse as Prince George and Princess Charlotte get older. He fears that they will be totally sidelined when the Queen dies.”

The Prince of Wales has made it very clear that he wishes to streamline the monarchy with only the most senior members at the forefront at major royal events mainly, Princes William and Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge. An example of this was seen on the balcony at the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, where the Queen, the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry were present. Prince Philip was ill and absent.

This isn’t the first incident where the Duke of York was left displeased of his daughters’ treatment by the Monarchy. In 2011, the princesses had their 24-hour police protection detail discontinued. Having them receive protection would make the budget exceed its annual allowance of £500,000. Full-time royals, like the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal do receive this support from the Sovereign Grant, which is money provided by the Government. The Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry are supported by income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Many who voted in Royal Central‘s poll agreed with the Queen’s decision. Graham Smith, a member of the ‘pressure group Republic’, told The Sun of the decision: “At a time of serious economic uncertainty the last thing we need is a grasping, greedy royal demanding more of our cash.” A spokeswoman from Buckingham Palace refused to comment on the matter.

  • Lady Martha

    Well, if Andrew wants to fuel the ever-present republican desire to abolish the monarchy in Great Britain, then he should just go ahead and continue to push, argue and get angry. The Queen has spoken. It makes complete sense for the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the sovereign to receive government-sourced protection and government financial support. However, it bears saying that limiting these provisions certainly does not preclude Beatrice and Eugenie from participating in the life and activities of the royal family. They should be loved, welcomed, appreciated and affirmed in their growth and development as productive working citizens as well as Princesses. They are intelligent and have unlimited potential!

    • luigi pasquali

      Get real. The general public is definitely not going to love, honour, and grovel to these two greedy royals who despise commoners.

  • In this day and age, security of the royal family including the extended members is a must.. I think if something ever happens to a member, with the present going on’s, we would be most regretful.. I don’t see why not those mention be at least part time, at least to cover some of the costs that must keep them safe and sound.
    We do need to restrain the costs of running a monarchy, but it is not those junior members fault being born in their position. So it will make sense to give them some roles.

  • Lesley Thompson

    I notice Andrew doesn’t mention the children of his brother Prince Edward, who are not styled prince and princess (why?). Edward doesn’t make any fuss about that. B and E are hangers on and need to earn their own living.

    • Steven Read

      Prince Edward wanted his kids to be styled as children of an Earl, they are entitled to the titles of Prince and Princess and I would assume HRH as well just like Anne’s kids.

      • David Rothschild Montgomery

        No, the Princess Royal’s children are not entitled to princely titles or HRH style because they are not male Line descendants of a monarch. I believe the queen did offer to elevate Peter and Zara, at the time of their births, to princely status, but the Princess Royal declined – which was a smart choice.

        • Not exactly evevation to Princely titles, but to give Capt Phillips an Earldom.. So Peter would be a Viscount today and Zara a Lady.

    • Holli McEachin

      Edward and Sophie are styled Earl and Countess of Wessex. Their children are styled as children of an Earl instead of a Prince because Edward declined to be elevated to a Duke when he married. Princess Anne declined titles for her children so that they could live as privately as they could.

  • Ishwar Batra

    I agree and honour the decision of Her Majesty.

  • Karen119

    It seems to me that Beatrice and Eugenie seem to have some difficulty in holding real, full time jobs. Perhaps this is their father’s way of ensuring their economic futures. Does anyone know how many engagements he completes in any given time frame?

  • luigi pasquali

    The Queen made the correct decision. Hip, Hip, Hooray.

  • Paul

    It doesn’t make sense that The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra can be working royals and the York Princesses can’t.
    As one of the few members of the younger generation of the royal family, they should be working royals

    • annieathens

      Times have changed Paul and there is a lot of anti Royal feelings in the UK and whether it’s their fault or not they have had very poor media reviews. They have never been groomed to serve, this is obvious by their actions. At this time it’s a very sensible decision.

    • Scott White

      The reason that The Queen’s cousins still undertake duties is because they have undertaken engagements in support of The Crown their entire lives. Back in 1952, when The Queen ascended the throne, there were not that many that could undertake engagements, so every one undertake engagements as soon as they were old enough. Once the Queen’s children became old enough to undertake engagements, the cousins began to scale back their role; but in gratitude to their years of service, The Queen still ensures that they have work as well. Also, The Queen in gratitude awarded The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra The Order of The Garter which is the highest honour in her personal gifts.

    • Elizabeth Pease

      What about Prince Michael? What work does he do? I know Princess Michael(née Marie Christine) writes novels, and the money she makes she probably has to give to Her Majesty.

  • luigi pasquali

    If they ever receive tax payer money, would they stop taking 20 vacations a year and would they stop forcing Duchess Catherine to grovel at their feet? The Yorks are known to have bad feeling

    • Lynn Taylor

      They are Royals…..

  • Charles Switzer

    I don’t necessarily agree. I think Beatrice and Eugenie should be available to the public. They are very engaging and would represent Her Majesty and eventually Charles very well. I can also understand this. Andrew has dropped further down the line of succession as has his daughter’s since the 1980s and 90s. It is also my understanding that Andrew and Sarah never really ingrained royal duty into their girls. Whereas William and Harry were raised as possible future sovereigns. I am sure we will still see them on occasions.

    • annieathens

      There is nothing whatsoever to stop them engaging in charitable events and supporting same. However, there is also no reason why they should receive funding from UK taxes, and as you say they have never been trained to serve, which is the main requirement of an acting Royal.I’m sure this wasn’t an easy decision for the Queen to make and I cannot understand why it was made public unless Andrew wanted it this way. One [point for sure we know that the Queen has always considered that Royals should have an occupation and these two seem to take their work loads very lightly. The very position in the Royal family that these girls have today should be enough of an opportunity to give them a well paid career, and I hope for their sakes that Andrew lets this rest now that a decision has been reached.

    • luigi pasquali

      Can they attract huge crowds? I don’t think so.

  • Dave

    It seems that being 7th and 8th in line to the the throne actually is nul and void, With all due respect to the queen, who is after all the wealthiest woman in the world I am sure a better decision could have been made. It can only be assumed that the Princesses were excluded from an early age from being trained into the roles of royalty, rather selfish I think. I wonder what that reason could have been? Even if taxpayers did not have to pay their salaries surely there are royal duties that they could perform for the Queen! And the Queen can afford them. The monarchy is not bankrupt, please! And please their dress sense has nothing to do with their ability to perform. Their academic records are proof that they are very smart girls. Exclusion is very selfish.

    • Brenda Murray

      Our Queen is nowhere near the richest woman in the world!!
      Her fortune is a mere £350 million. The richest woman has a fortune of….$40 BILLION, and several others are worth billions. Do your research!

    • luigi pasquali

      No, their academic records mean only that they made it through college as undergraduates most likely because they are privileged Royals.
      No professor is going to flunk a Royal.

  • Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice are hot, deserving of some of that royal loot! We wouldn’t want them to degenrate into Dianas, after all, and tool about with shady playboy types.

    • luigi pasquali

      Princesses of jealousy and hate is more like it. Fat and wearing a girdle is not being hot. “Denigrate into tooling about with shady playboy types”? They put Diana to shame.

  • Jackie Romagnano

    personally, i do not see how you can put the Duke of York’s two daughters on the same level as William, Harry and Catherine…William is second in line to the throne with a wife and two children and then Prince Harry..i also think that Andrew’s demanding this and feeling entitled to it rather defeats him before he even gets started…his poor mother being put in this position as it regards her is up to Andrew to provide for his daughters and i do not see Charles and William cutting the girls out completely and would always provide for them just not in the style that Andrew has become accustomed to

  • Lynn

    Very unfair by HM as they are her grandchildren as well as William and Harry – Just Charlie boy being selfish again…….If they are not included, then Camilla, the ex mistress should not be either……

    • luigi pasquali

      They are blood Royals but they are also spoiled brats who have hatred in the hearts.

  • Lynn

    They are 7th and 8th in line to the throne and should be classed as senior royals along with Anne and Edward’s children……Charlie boy is just being dogmatic again, as always, it seems there is one law for him, who got his own way by marrying his mistress and making her a royal and one for all the others…….Andrew is right to stand up to his odious, bullying, selfish older brother, the other 2 siblings should back him up……..

  • Steven

    Where in the above article does it state that the Queen as said anything about the issue? There’s the statements from Charles and Andrew, but I don’t see anything official from the Palace.

More in Her Majesty The Queen