Should Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie be funded as full time Royals?

A bit of a joke. Andrew should have taken a leaf out of Anne's book and made them stand on their own two feet. We don't need 'blood princesses' other than the ones in direct line to the throne.

I don't think they're a joke, why would I? I have nothing personal against them as they're j u st two young women who have been born into a certain family. How they look, dress even behave is nothing to do with me, but I certainly don't think they should be funded by the tax payer. If they do perform the odd royal duty then presumably they would be reimbursed appropriately as would anyone else. Other than that NO!!

No

Who funded all Queen Victoria's various children? I mean how have royal family members previously been funded?

No

They are grandchildren, I assume Victoria's grandchildren were supported by their fathers

No

Definitely not and that includes Andrew.

As a republican, I don't think any of them should be funded. But as it appears the majority of people at the moment wish to retain a King or Queen and their status as "subjects", then I think only the Queen or her successor should receive funding.

No.

There are already more than enough of them, the numbers should be cut back, not increased.

Andrew has always been out to grab anything he could, such as his various so called trade missions.

I agree, it's no from me. I think Andrew should take a leaf out of Anne's book and Edward. Eugene & Beatrice should make their own lives and not expect to be funded by the taxpayer. Andrew is a bad example to his daughters and has always been favoured by the Queen.

They should go out and earn their own living like almost every other woman of their age. However, poor girls lumbered with parents, both of whom are freeloaders, it is not surprising that that is they way they are going too.

I agree No
But if they do stand on their own feet and make their own money
then No One should hold up their hands in horror if they choose to follow their Mothers path,
Eg advertise Weight Watchers in the USA.

ARE they funded as full-time royals?

That's true Cherrytree
They can't expect Fergie to live on fresh air and I don't see anything wrong with earning a living from commercial enterprise - as long as they don't use their royal connections in the advertising of their services!

Eloethan I don't think many people regard themselves as subjects of HM these days.
And, agree with a monarchy or not, there are many people here and abroad who do like to use their services to open or promote their charity or whatever, and there is only so much HM can do - people mention Princess Anne's children but Princess Anne herself carries out more royal visits/duties than any other member of the Royal Family, so she must be much in demand from some quarters (if not from the Republican movement)!

Definitely no!

OK, I had missed the furore and have now caught up. There seems to be only one person pressing for them to have a more prominent role - their doting daddy. Perhaps he has had enough of funding them himself.

His sugggestion has been decisively turned down and when/if Prince Charles is king it doesn't sound as though he will be adding them to the payroll. No need for us to get too wound up at the prospect.

No, they're not funded Elegran; they are funded by their father, who is presumably part-funded by HM from the Sovereign Grant. Their protection finished years ago too.
Presumably they haven't made enough headway in their careers and this would not require a CV etc.
Post applied for: Princess
Qualifications: Princess
Past experience: Princess
Future ambitions: Princess

'And what makes you feel you have the qualifications to be a Princess?'
'My Grandmother is HM The Queen'

'Sorry, we already have a Princess whose great-grandfather was a coalminer and the public seems to like her.'

If andrew is part funded by us who pays him the rest

No! They should get a job. In the end, like their mother, their connection to royalty will open doors for them. Unjust but true.

Well, I am not absolutely sure when I said that.
Does he get an RN pension? Peanuts to him I suppose

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/12/daily-mail-is-right-to-pursue-prince-andrew-over-his-finances
I do not normally swear but B*** H* - the Guardian says that the Daily Mail is right

Jalima, I never took you for a DM-basher!

I meant 'I was not absolutely sure of my facts when I mentioned that'
what I posted above means something different to what I meant!

No, I don't bash papers (except when swatting a fly) (and except for The Sun yuk), I was just flabbergasted that the Guardian should say the DM was right for once!!!
It must be the only time!