From the perspective of a Brit, a lot of people do not like these girls because they have chosen not to work as royals or partake in royal duties as other royals have done, and yet they still take advantage of their wealth and links with the royal family (i.e. the Queen, Prince Harry and William, etc who all contribute enormously to the country and our economy. Most people don’t have a problem with the Royal Family, because while they are funded by the taxpayer, their existence brings more money into the country than their cost to the taxpayer. The problem is that while the Queen, for example, works tirelessly, Eugenie and Beatrice frankly do very little to contribute and yet still reap some of the rewards of being part of the royal family. The sisters and their parents have been known to take excessively lavish trips at the cost of the taxpayer, either directly or indirectly, and this is not well received. Most recently there is uproar that the taxpayer is footing the bill for security for Eugenie’s wedding, which many people believe should be funded by her parents. Put simply, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding their lavish spending and where exactly they get their funding from.
This is what I was lured into reading the other day.
It was one of those sidebar, click-bait links for, "You might be interested in reading about. . . " So, I'm not sure of the accuracy, but it said that basically the only descendants that automatically get the "royal" title (and jobs) of prince or princess at birth are only the ones who are in direct succession to the throne. That means only Charles, William & baby George.
Not everyone else automatically becomes a prince or princes. Everyone else was
gifted their title(s) by the reigning king or queen. William was gifted the Dukedom of Cambridge, and Kate the Duchess. When Harry got married, he & Meghan were gifted the Dukedom of Sussex.
Andrew & Fergie were gifted the Dukedom of York.
On the other hand, Princess Anne, who actually booked more royal engagements each year than either the Queen or later, Diana did, upon marrying, her then husband politely declined being made a lord. And when Anne's children were born, she & DH declined the queen gifting the children the titles of prince & princess. (I guess she'd had enough of royal duty!) And the children have gone on to live lives as "commoners" and have been able to choose regular professions and have publicly stated they are very grateful to their parents for not saddling them with being "royal" and all the duties that go with it.
Whereas, Andrew & Fergie accepted the title of princess for their daughters, but, the daughters don't seem to really WANT to do all that goes with the JOB of what a royal does. Although, as you say, they still take advantage of their wealth and links with the royal family. I think they are in an awkward position. They have the titles, not by choice. They DO have to show up every now & then to royal events, but don't want to do all the work - because they are also
not on the payroll. Nor, I suspect, really want to be. Even though Andrew would like them to be, so he can stop paying for them.
As for the security for Eugenie’s wedding, having the royal title puts a target on her by Isis & Al qaeda and other terrorists as she represents the
country/government. Again, she didn't choose that position. It's not like Meghan & Kate, who knew the risks they married into. I think it's kind of unfair to expect the family only to foot the whole bill for someone who may be in danger because represents the country/government. It's not the same as if she was only in danger by an ex-boyfriend-turned stalker, which is a private situation.
Here is the link, if anyone else wants to read it:
https://www.vogue.com.au/celebrity/...s/news-story/b657eb7a2bbb247ffc5ba3370e09292b
I just googled a few clips on YouTube though. I saw her walk down the aisle and is it just me or was that music super-discordant sounding?
I think the style sort of called for it too, not like some very sleek, dramatic couture that stands alone.
