Eugenie and Beatrice

I’m embarrassed at my fellow Gransnetters. If you want to talk about the funding of the royal family, why don’t you start a thread where you can chunter away to your heart’s content, instead of laying it all at the door of two minor royals who as far as any of us know have done nothing illegal.

The fact and it is a fact that the monarchs estate is IHT exempt is totally unacceptable. And the facts about the intestate estates (with no heirs) and especially what Charles does with that money from the duchy of Lancaster is totally indefensible.

It seems that the royal families finances are undisclosed which is why they can be used for money laundering. The author I’ve been listening to keeps mentioning the term due diligence; I know nothing about the law so don’t understand it all. I’m saying this as someone who has always had a soft spot for the royal family and I’m not a Republican. So it’s all very disturbing.

StoneofDestiny Just for the sake of accuracy you might want to delve deeper into the inheritance tax laws as they apply to the Royal Family. They are not all exempt from the tax, so your assertions are untrue. If you're so obviously wrong about that maybe there are other 'facts' you're wrong about? Just a thought.
The vitriol directed at these two women is very sad to see. I am amazed at the number of posters with intimate knowledge of their thoughts, knowledge, financial arrangements etc they must indeed be friends with Eugenie and Beatrice at the very least. I love my sister-in-law very much, we're very close but I couldn't claim such absolute knowledge about her.

I’ve been listening to interviews with the man who wrote Andrews biography ‘Entitled’ and regarding his daughters he said the apple never falls far from the tree and he thinks they should give up their royal titles and the King should distance himself from them. That they have financial interests in the far east. I’ve rather tried not to listen to too much about the files but whilst I was listening to something else on utube an interview on The News Agents popped up and it’s almost impossible not to get drawn into it all. It’s sordid beyond belief and so far reaching. And has been going on for decades.

I certainly don’t hate the two princesses.
I don’t think they were anyway involved with all the seediness.
They probably knew Epstein to be a creep.
You can’t expect the public not to be interested, especially if they think their taxes are funding these trips.

Allira

GrannyGravy13

Geordiegirl1

These are grown women and knew perfectly well, having been recipients of all that was on offer.

How do you know this?

First hand information?

I'm agog!

Young women………a couple of years older than Virginia Guiffre and similar age to many of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims. Young enough to meet friends of their parents and not see what was going on

I know this is in the Daily Mail but it appears Beatrice knew more than we realise.
There is even an accusation that Beatrice was an alibi for her her father on the night that he was with ( allegedly) Virginia Roberts.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15546383/What-Beatrice-REALLY-knew-parents-dealings-Epstein-Files-reveal-advised-Fergie-PR-friendship-paedophile-claimed-friend-Princess-likes-me.html

Royal experts ! Close friends ! never named, give / sell tales to newspapers

Allira
I'm agog!

I’m not surprised. One wonders how closely involved someone with that level of knowledge was themselves.

GrannyGravy13

Geordiegirl1

These are grown women and knew perfectly well, having been recipients of all that was on offer.

How do you know this?

First hand information?

I'm agog!

Geordiegirl1

These are grown women and knew perfectly well, having been recipients of all that was on offer.

How do you know this?

Geordiegirl1

They aren’t girls!

They were young, presumably sheltered.

They aren’t girls!

These are grown women and knew perfectly well, having been recipients of all that was on offer.

MartavTaurus

Smileless2012

I think we should reserve all the anger and vitriol for the real monsters here I agree nightowl.

So true. 👏 👏

I agree.

Foolish they may be but at 19 and 20 perhaps many are and perhaps they trusted their mother.

I'm surprised that Royal advisers were not more pro-active but it seems anyone could be drawn into the malevolent web.

And when you start using the word parasites, OldFrill, it shows you have lost any argument you may have been able to put forward.

OldFrill

Allira

OldFrill

GrannyGravy13

The sovereign grant costs U.K. taxpayers £1.29 per person.

What else can you get for £1.29, a loaf in Aldi’s a couple of tins of beans…

£1.29 each totals £86.3 million and surely would be better spent on those who live below the breadline rather than those rolling in dough.

So you suggest having no Head of State at all?

No expense whatsoever.

If people think a Presidential system with elections would be cheaper, they might be mistaken.

eg spectator.com/article/macrons-lavish-spending-is-jeopardising-french-finances/

Cost of 2024 General Election UK: approximately £94 million.

I'm not being baited to de-rail the thread further as I don't think my views on Head of State are relevant to this thread.

I object to people using the £1.29 as an argument for subsidising these extremely wealthy parasites. They make enough from the Duchies, their extensive but dubious investment portfolios, trust arrangements and incredibly favourable inheritance and other tax allowances that l see no need to give them anything more.

I'm not baiting

I just don't understand why anyone, President or Monarch, should use any of their own money to pay for the job they do as Head of State.

Either we have a Head of State and pay for it or we don't, which is not something which is usual. Perhaps Switzerland is the only one I can think of off-hand as they have a Council. Whether it is less expensive than a Head of State I do not know.

It is isn't in Annie .

Distressing to read such hated of these two women

Smileless2012

^I think we should reserve all the anger and vitriol for the real monsters here^ I agree nightowl.

So true. 👏 👏

I think we should reserve all the anger and vitriol for the real monsters here I agree nightowl.

What we know from the so-far released Epstein documents is shocking enough - how much more shocking are those details that have been redacted allegedly to protect the innocent and in the interests of 'national security'?

And will we ever know? Trump has decided the American people - and therefore by default everyone else - should "move on" and focus on more important matters.

eazybee

I thought the homeless, eight people I believe , were removed from the streets of Windsor for the wedding of H & M, but perhaps it was done for Eugenie as well.

What an unpleasant thread this has become. These two women cannot be held responsible for the criminal greed of their parents, and seem to be living independent lives away from the dominance of their mother at last.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I agree eazybee. I cannot believe the vitriol being aimed at these two women, but then again they have long been seen as fair game by the press and public just because of who their parents are.

I think it’s pretty clear that they have had pretty appalling parenting by a couple of grifters with no morals, and in particular a mother who constantly gave out the message that she was a wonderful mother who would do anything for ‘her girls’. How were they to know, as children, that their parents were so corrupt? The kind of emotionally abusive and manipulative parenting they received is not something people magically recover from when they become adults. It’s not a great stretch to accept that they might still be working through the realisation of their own experiences, and all in the public eye. I cannot see that they have done anything wrong in their private lives and yes, they do have careers.

I think we should reserve all the anger and vitriol for the real monsters here.