“…Grayce McCormick, founder of Lightfinder Public Relations, made the remarks following the sisters' recent appearance at the Buckingham Palace garden party last month. Rumours began to circulate after they joined Prince William at the event. However, the PR expert said the pair shouldn't become working royals as it would undoubtedly cause friction.

She believes if they were to become working royals it could impact the "monarchy's public image" as competition could rise between the sisters' and other members of the family. She said: "The emergence of new working royals may fuel comparisons and competition within the Royal Family. It could potentially lead to internal tensions or conflicts that could damage the monarchy's public image."

——

I found this article really surprising. I never really believed they would become working royals, but I didn’t think there would really be a downside, especially with the unfortunate illnesses going on. What do you think?

Posted by Copperheadmedusa

8 comments

  1. The major downside is their father. Having the York sisters take on a more prominent role makes attention also fall on their father which is not what the monarchy wants.

  2. I think Charles and William like them but they want Andrew to fade into the background.

  3. I never got the impression that the York sisters wanted to be working royals. Didn’t Eugenie go on a podcast last year essentially saying she wants to live part-time in Portugal with the kids and husband? Beatrice seems to stick with less public charity work herself. They’ll show up to events and smile and wave but seem to (want to) live a more upper-class rather than royal lifestyle.

    How bad are things if the firm is recruiting these two?

  4. I’ve really seen these two mature over the years and I would love to see them as working royals – even if part-time or casual/as needed. I don’t see why when situations arise that one of the grandchildren couldn’t be hired on with a contract on an as-needed basis. I other than Wills and Kate, the rest are very up there in age. Bringing in the grandchildren would (maybe?) help the image of an aging royal family and keep the younger population involved.

    I’m wondering who this conflict would be with. My only guess is Edward and Sophie, as everyone else is much older and likely won’t mind a few less engagements. Perhaps some kind of a calculation or equation is used to determine how many events non-working royals can step in for to ensure fairness.

  5. I don’t think they’ll brought in as working royals anytime soon atleast not in Charles’ “reign”.

    I also don’t think there’s any benefit of doing so. If the idea is to cover more engagements you need a Anne/Sophie/Edward type not another Will and Kate. Charles also does not seem super keen on supporting all the extended family already from the briefings around the coronation.

    I’m super curious how William’s reign will look, because at that point they’ll have lost all the cousins and most likely his aunts and uncles will be reducing how much they’ll be doing or retired.

  6. It’s funny to think that the Gloucesters and the Kents are working members, but other than William, none of the late Queen’s grandchildren currently are. I think this divide (working vs non-working) is efficient in excluding the controversial members without personally targeting anyone.

    I don’t see anyone new joining in at the moment. Despite all the major losses, there’s still a decent number of people working. But in ten years, I don’t know… It will take more than that for the Wales children.

  7. 1- Peter, Zara and Mike were also at the Garden Party

    2- None of the 5 was mentioned in the Court Circular for the event and apparently Beatrice and Eugenie used to be mentioned when they did Garden parties for The Queen

    If the rumors about Beatrice having a role in the Japanese state visit turn out to be true, then that’d be something to speculate about, otherwise, it’s a non story

  8. “‘The emergence of new working royals… It could potentially lead to internal tensions or conflicts that could damage the monarchy’s public image.’”

    Because there aren’t ANY internal tensions or conflicts that are damaging the monarchy’s public image right now.

Leave a Reply