Will Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie become the new stars of the royal family?

Are they related to the Willis girls?

They both seem pleasant enough and like pretty decent people. They can't help who their parents are.

🎶O, O, O, Ozempic🎶

Highly unlikely.

Aren't they the only ones still close to Harry? I doubt angryman Wills wants them anywhere near the monarchy.

Can the Ozempic troll just fucking die already? Everybody's on it right now. Big fucking deal.

Wow, Princess Eugenie is quite attractive. I never really noticed her before.

Princess Beatriz is a fat cow!

The one on the left needs about 10 cheeseburgers. She looks like a death camp survivor.

Eugenie is very close to Harry. Her husband is some rea estate investor with interests in a huge development in Portugal which is where Eugenie lives. Or at least she did live there. Beatrice has a role to play on the Privy Council doesn't she? The Kents are circling the drain and the Gloucesters while delightful and hard working are in their 80's even though they look fit. Sophie of Edinburgh has been looking very relaxed and animated during her royal duties. I have to wonder who she's having an affair with.

On an Airline employees chat page, both of them were mentioned as very gracious and pleasant to attend to. They have no scandals of their own, other than taking too many holidays. I think the BRF could use them pretty effectively. I don't blame them for their pretty awful parents.

How many people have absolute shit parents but are, themselves, very decent people? You can never judge people because of who their parents are. The York girls seem like they're pretty kind and decent.

I know several people who had awful parents but turned out as amazing people. A therapist told me that children of awful people either turn out a hundred percent like their parents or a hundred percent the opposite.

Beatrice is a fat, fat, fattie.

Something about them feels low end. I think it's because they look funny, especially Drizella.

^^Hundreds of years of royal inbreeding will definitely make a person look odd.

Beatrice was the first Royal to run the London Marathon. She's a tiny little thing.

Beatrice needs some sort of corrective action on her 👀.

I would like to see a shouting match between them, Kate and Meghan. Unsure how that could be arranged.

I have a feeling Kate would win against them all.

It's amazing. Once you leave out Prince William and his wife and Harry the rest of the German royal family wouldn't win best in show.

They're German from way back, but their heritage is now mostly English.

William, Harry, and both the York princesses are all more than half-British in terms of their ethnic heritage.

William's children are all more than 3/4 British.

The Queen Mother was English/Scottish and Diana was full English.

Maybe if you give them cubes of sugar?

R19 why aim so low? Why not mud wrestling, or a cage match? Or maybe an American Gladiators-type of competition?

The one with the big teeth is a little scary looking.

Both Princesses were raised attending garden parties and chatting with the public.

'My name's Beatrice': Princess introduces herself as 'very lucky' granddaughter of the Queen

Those new supermarkets and schools aren't going to open themselves!

Hallo, I'm Bay-triss. Hev you kem fah? Thet sends retheh nice.)

(Hello, I'm Beatrice. Have you come far? That sounds rather nice.)

Those eyes and chompers look like they could follow you around in the dark

Beautiful ladies!

One has huge pop eyes and the other has huge pop-up breasts.

They’re cartoon characters.

I feel the fat one has potential. Does she possess any personal charisma?

Homely ass women. Of course, Fergie is busted and unphotogenic. Andrew was okay looking but he hit the Windsor wall HARD. His recent scandals have also aged him.

R34, I think Princess Eugenie is quite articulate in interviews.

Princess Eugenie talks climate activism at Davos, 1.03 minutes

With those mugs!! God forbid!

Is there a surgery that can correct bulging eyes?

Any chance that when William becomes king he shuts the whole thing down?

The monarch can't dissolve the monarchy you stupid twat.

I think I saw one of them at the Royal Ascot.

The British press don't even know which one's which. I saw an article about Eugenie the other day accompanied by a photo of Beatrice. That's not the first time I've seen that.

Bug Eyes and Tiny Eyes.

I think William and Katherine will trim things down so they can be more like other European monarchies, but they will keep some of the traditions. The Order of the Garter will stay. Opening Parliament will stay, The wreaths at the Cenotaph will stay. But the nursery schools and homes for the elderly, and the random veterans tea gatherings will end. Their priorities will probably be The Environment, British Trade and Cultural institutions, Mental Health, and Children's early childhood education, and always honoring their dead warriors. I think They will not live at Buckingham Palace. Probably, when in London, at Clarence House, and mostly Windsor which is closer to their kids schools, including Eton if George goes toEton.

The Dork Sisters.

R44. You're American, right? You don't have Any basis for any of those speculations. It's not really William' s decision whether he opens parliament or not.

The notion anyone knows where anyone will live is amusing. But I agree Buckingham Palace has probably been reduced to an event venue. Charles has a nice habit of saying one thing (she will be Princess Consort, we're moving in once the renovation is done) and doing another (she is Queen Consort, eh, maybe we'll stay at Clarence House....) The only problem is maybe the King and Queen should live in it, given the hundreds of millions of pound spend refurbishing it. But if it's opened more to the public, maybe everyone will be cool with the expense to preserve a largely empty building.

R46 re your last sentence, r44 was saying the opposite: some things cannot change, including your example. You’re in agreement there.

We agree on the result. We disagree in the stupidity of the statement. An American saying William will retain the opening of parliament is as silly and arrogant as a Brit saying that US Presidents will continue to decide begin their terms on January 20.

They look like aging horses and their father is a pedophile. Cut them off.

Opening Parliament will stay is all that was said.

That is a correct statement. And that is precisely what was silly about the post.

If someone were posting in 2020 about the changes Biden would make in the presidency and what he would keep the same, mentioning that the inauguration day would remain on the same day would signal you know nothing about what you are taking about. It something you would never say if you weren't just taking bs.

They were my favorite characters on The Windsors.

I've always had a soft spot for Beatrice's from-another-era looks. She's gone too far with the weight loss pills, though

Just for the sake or argument the Inauguration can be altered. The POTUS is POTUS as of Noon on January 20th. But the swearing in and all the pomp and ceremony are not etched in stone and can be eliminated because they're traditions not rules.

Will there be toe scandal? Maybe a children’s book about a helicopter 🚁 can help!

R53 = prancing pony JK Rowling fanatic

R94. Geez. Give it up. The wording of the oath is specified in Article II, Section One, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution, and a new president is required to take it before exercising or carrying out any official powers or duties.

Nobody can Win on DL. These girls seem very grounded and appreciative of their good luck. Yet DL concentrates on their looks; but if they had cosmetic surgery; big lips etc, we'd tear them down for that. Im sure it has not been easy seeing their mother mistreated and dint even talk about their dad. Theyre doing better than 75% of hollywood airs who historically have been a hot mess..with many suicides, drug scandals and sad endings.

HEIRS.... not AIRS ... i'll hang my head in shame and hit myself over the head ala Dorothy to Rose.

I don't think it's impossible that in later years they will perform some royal duties or have some royal patronages, in the way that the Kents and the Gloucesters do. They are already charity patrons. That's nothing to do with being "stars", as the Tatler sees it, however.

Beatrice is already a Counsellor of State, although she may never carry out many or any functions in that capacity.

[QUOTE]William, Harry, and both the York princesses are all more than half-British in terms of their ethnic heritage. William's children are all more than 3/4 British.

But they all have the same "look," except for Louis who will probably acquire it as he ages, as the other kids have. Those Windsor genes must be very strong.

I think they're actually more Teck than Windsor genes.

Mary of Teck was essentially also a Windsor b

They are not going to become working royals. That would have started much younger than this.

Recently, since Katherine and Charles diagnoses they have been making the random appearance at various charitable events in the UK. IMO it makes sense to allow them to help out once in a while. And continue to have their own private lives.

Beatrice has a handsome Italian husband so she needs to stay super skinny to keep his interest.

Mary of Teck’s closest link to the British crown was through her great grandfather George III of the house of Hanover.

Baytriss is all Queen Victoria.

Beatrice has definitely upped her style game since marrying Edo.

I like their dynamic, R28; they look like they're very close.

R65, they've always been to various charitable events and have had their own charitable patronages for some time. That's not the same as representing the monarch at official events, which is what a working royal is.

R67. But it wasn't her only ancestral connection.

Anorexia alert.

Actually it was, R72. The closest that she came to being a Windsor was marrying George V who changed the house name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Apart from her descent from George III all her other antecedents were from German royal or in her father’s case, non royal houses (Teck). She was related to Queen Victoria through her mother as they were cousins and she had antecedents who anglicised their names during WWI but no descent from the House of Windsor herself.

Her children were all Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (later Windsor) whereas she simply married one.

Actually, you are wrong. She, was for example, separately descenddd from a George II apart from her descent from George III.

And was George II a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (later Windsor)? No, he was the head of the House of Hanover.

Try again.

Dear Lord. Please DO NOT try again. Do you think kinship and descent are broken at each change of name? That you are related to your father if you hear his name but not to your mother? The idiocy!

R77 It feels as though you’re pulling random facts out of your head in the hope that one of these will prove that Queen Mary was of Windsor descent. It’s not my job to educate you but before I bow out I’ll leave you these:

The House of Windsor was renamed from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha by her husband in 1917, by which time she was 50 - descent not possible there.

The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha reigned from the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 under her son Edward VII and his son George V. Victoria was the last of the house of Hanover. Mary was a descendant of none of the above, nor was she a descendant of Victoria’s husband Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

A cursory glance at her family tree (multiple versions in the public domain) will show no descent from anyone other than Hanover kings and various German royals and nobles but no Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Mary dodged a bullet not to look like Victoria or the Hanovers (bug eyes, the lot of them) and especially not her mother Princess Mary-Adelaide - “Fat Mary” - who was enormous but apparently enormously popular. She looked most like her father the Duke of Teck who was penniless and not royal but quite handsome from pictures and so was married off to Fat Mary as she had no other suitors lining up.

By the way - once you resort to ALL CAPS, insults and exclamation marks, you’re showing that you’re flailing and have lost the argument.

R77 you make no sense - better to admit defeat and step away.

Harry looks like Queen Mary.

God. You are the royal fan equivalent of Donald Trump ("not of people know Lincoln was. Republican"). All the facts you summarized are well known and only startling to yourself. The bloodline lines of the family are the same regardless of the name they bear.

This is one of the most remarkable examples of stupidity I have encountered.

The bug eyes go all the way back to the Hanoverians, don't they?

With the King needing to slow down, the two sisters are naturals by birth to help William and Katherine.

[QUOTE]Mary dodged a bullet not to look like Victoria or the Hanovers (bug eyes, the lot of them)

But Mary had the Windsor phenotype that is observed in many of her ancestors, which was my whole point at r62 (not to start a genealogy debate!). The muzzle area is prominent and becomes more so as they age, giving them that horsey look.

Elizabeth and all of her offspring had/have it to some degree. William, also, and Harry to a lesser degree. I think one reason William looks better with a beard is that it disguises/softens the look.

Psycho cannibal bug eyes

R84. Agreed. I’ve heard it referred to as a canine mouth. Mary had it once she aged, and Queen Elizabeth II had it to some degree all her life.

Queen Mary had an attractive father and a hideous mother. Fortunately, Mary and her brothers (one of whom was very good looking) took more after the father.

Assessments of Mary’s looks vary, but it seems to me she was reasonably attractive as a young woman but aged somewhat strangely.

[quote]Beatrice has definitely upped her style game since marrying Edo.

Yes, marriage to an Italian was just what she needed. Plus he provides eye candy.

Both gals are fug. The public deserves better.

Next!

The one on the left is ghastly looking.

Which one has gone full Skeletor?

Before her weight loss, Beatrice looked a bit like young Queen Victoria.

The Hanover eyes never lie.

But they aren't Hanoverian. The family changed its name during World War I and therefore they are Windsor and not even genetically related to the Hanoverians.

What do you mean they're not genetically related to the Hanoverians? They're directly descended from them!

If I were them, I'd play the part but have my share of fun. Take Ozempic. Drink all day. Who cares? These days you'd have to fuck up pretty badly, after Harry and Andrew, to make much of a splash in the tabloids. My favorite, after Diana of course, would be the Queen Mum and her tippling all day. Her daily drinking schedule was posted here recently and it sounded idea. Just toddle through life with a solid happy buzz, smile, wave, and wear hats.

For the alleged royal historian R93:

George III —> Edward Duke of Kent—> Victoria—>> Edward VII—> George V—> George VI—> Elizabeth II—> Andrew Duke of York—> Bea and Euge

George III through to Victoria were Hanoverians Edward VII onwards were Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (House name changed in 1917 to “Windsor”).

Therefore the two York Princesses are descended from the House of Hanover ao.

,R,96. Geez. Do you know how to read? As the signature clearly dicates, t was a parody of the idiot at R78 who denied Mary of Teck was descended from George II because the family had changed its name since George II.

R78 denied that Mary of Teck was a Windsor because she was not descended from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as the Windsors were previously known, which strictly speaking is true. But he was arguing obtusely against someone who referred to Mary of Teck as being a Windsor in the sense of being descended from the family that the Windsors are also descended from, which she was.

Yeah. He’s just deeply confused and proud of himself. He disputed that she was descended from George II, and no post said she was literally a Windsor before her marriage. The only statement was that she was essentially a Windsor because of their shared ancestry. Just a person who doesn’t know how to read and likes showing off his knowledge of widely known facts.

These whores are also genetically related to the Romanovs.

Warfare is ANTI war. The Joe frau has worms for brains. Joe said he would love to work with Alex Garland but he never will.

Apologies, R97 - considering some of the unhinged obsessives on these threads it can be hard to separate the parody from the parodies - for me anyway.

^^^ from the parodied

R100 we have discussed that here. Both Nicholas and Alexandra were related through Queen Victoria. The connections between the rulers of Russia, Germany and England, were not several generations removed, but right there in your face. And the British monarch let them die. It was a shameful episode in the history of the monarchy.

They will be. If they win the Derby Stakes at Epsom Downs

r104 Alix was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, Nicholas was not closely related to her. He and Alix shared mutual cousins in the Wales children (Edward VIII, George VI, etc); their mother Queen Alexandra was Nicholas's maternal aunt and their father Edward VII was Alix's maternal uncle.

Meant to say in r106 that Nicholas was not closely related to QV, not Alix of Hesse (his wife).

It's why the denial of support of the Romanovs by George V and the UK was viewed as so treacherous - he was a 1st cousin, and former childhood playmate, of both the Tsar and Tsarina.

Only on DL would a thread about Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie descend into an argument over the lineage of Mary of Teck.

What you on about, r104? First-cousin marriage was common in Europe in the 19th century and it wasn't limited to royals, e.g. Charles Darwin was married to his first cousin. There was nothing shameful about it for their day.

What in R104's post indicates cousin marriages didn't occur.

Nothing, he seems not to realise how extensive and widely practiced and accepted it was and is blaming the royal family for something that was not their doing.

R111 Okay......I think it might just be a voice in your head telling you that.

George V did what a constitutional monarch would do with regard to the Romanovs. It is generally accepted that within the palace organisation his private secretary advised him most strongly against advocating for the Romanovs. It is generally accepted he didn't demand the Romanovs be brought to Britain. But it wasn't just about him and in the end, it wasn't his decision.

At the time the Romanovs were detained, Britain and Russia were allied in the ongoing first world war so there was a political and strategic component. For the king - but also for the government - it is undeniable there was advantage in not bringing the Romanovs to Britain. They were unpopular. He was seen as a despot, she as a German. There was an offer of asylum in Britain, initiated at the request of Russia's foreign minister. It was withdrawn. Why still isn't clear though it's accepted George V didn't fight for it. He did not have the power to stop it, only to try to influence the decision.

There was a benefit to both the Windsors and the government in eliminating the risk of a move that could increase republican sentiment and destabilise the government by destabilising the monarchy. Fifteen thrones fell in Europe during and after the first world war. The British government didn't want that any more than the House of Windsor did. The rise of communism can be traced back to the demise of the political order prior to the first world war, of which monarchy was a part. While monarchies may have been absolutes in some countries, it Britain it worked well. The chaos of abolishing the British monarchy would have unnerved the entire political system, at a minimum.

Alternatives were Denmark (deemed too close to Germany to be suitable.) Norway and Sweden offered help with an evacuation but declined to take the Romanovs in. France and Switzerland both refused asylum. The King of Spain tried and failed. He was fighting only for the wife and kids.

Even if George V had gone to bat for the Romanovs, it is not to say he could have made it happen. That decision was the government's. (And I'd note here, the government did not necessarily take orders from the Crown. Its political authority had been dwindling since the end of the 17th century and by the time George V took the throne what was left was the right to be consulted, to advice, to warn and to encourage. For what it's worth, it was Cabinet and the Dominion governments forced the abdication twenty some odd years later because the politicians didn't believe their countries was accept Mrs. Simpson as Queen.)

From a moral perspective it would have been nicer for his reputation if he'd said bring them here. That kind of excludes the realities of the politics for all interested parties and it doesn't necessarily follow he could have changed how it all played out.

I wrote a lot. Blame The Crown.