Princess Eugenie ‘banned’ from vacationing by her new London bosses


Over the summer, we couldn’t stop talking about how Princess Beatrice went on an endless series of vacations. Beatrice even “started” a new “job” in New York, but that didn’t stop her from going on holiday almost immediately. Twice. She left her job in New York to go to a big wedding party for several days and then she went on holiday on a yacht for a week or so, which ended up being her 17th holiday in less than a year (at a cost of $460,000).

While Beatrice got the brunt of the criticism, Eugenie was always held up as an example of how to do the part-time princess thing correctly. Eugenie worked at Paddle8 in New York for a few years, she kept her head down and we were not seeing her on endless vacations. Eugenie returned to England a few months ago to start a new job as associate director for the gallery Hauser & Wirth. The job came with a pay raise and it was said that Hauser & Wirth “lured” Eugenie away from her Paddle8 job with promises of a lucrative contract. But now the Daily Mail reports that the gallery hasn’t been too pleased with Eugenie… mostly because she keeps going on vacation!

When Princess Eugenie began her new job at a swish art gallery in July, she looked every inch the keen young professional. But it seems her dedication to the role wasn’t completely boundless – and she has now been banned from attending her mother’s birthday celebrations in New York next month after taking a remarkable 25 days’ holiday in her first ten weeks at the gallery. The 25-year-old Royal planned to jet across the Atlantic for the birthday bash on October 15 and also see her sister Beatrice, who now works in New York. But Eugenie’s bosses at Hauser & Wirth in Mayfair have ordered her to remain in London.

Instead of partying in the Big Apple, Eugenie will be manning a stall in Regent’s Park for Frieze London, one of the most important fairs in the contemporary art world. The event runs from October 14 to 17. With Eugenie stuck in London, it is thought that Beatrice and the Duchess of York, who will be 56, will now fly to Britain so that she doesn’t miss out on the fun.

Eugenie joined Hauser & Wirth as an associate art director on July 17. She had been working in New York for auction company Paddle8, but was reportedly lured home with a hefty pay rise and the desire to be reunited with her boyfriend Jack Brooksbank. But since starting the job, by my reckoning Eugenie has been absent for an astonishing 50 per cent of the time. First, she took a day off on July 30 to attend Ladies’ Day at Glorious Goodwood, and on August 11 she was spotted boarding a flight to Aberdeen with her father, Prince Andrew. She is believed to have spent four days at Balmoral on a grouse-shooting holiday.

On August 17, the Princess reportedly jetted off to Europe for a three-week break, returning on September 4. But three days later she was packing her bags again, this time for a week-long trip to New York, where she visited Beatrice and attended the US Open tennis tournament.

A source at H&W told me: ‘Because she is a Royal, the company does expect Eugenie to take more time off than most. But it has been made clear to her that the summer is over and it’s time to knuckle down. She will be working incredibly hard over the coming weeks and she won’t be holidaying again until Christmas.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I think part of the problem is my sheer American-ness. Like, in American work culture, if you’re a drone (and if your job title has “associate” something in it, you’re a drone), you really aren’t allowed to have this kind of time off, even in the summer. And you certainly don’t get three weeks off just a month and a half after STARTING a new job, on top of a four day shooting holiday, etc, etc. For the love of God. Maybe Eugenie isn’t “the good sister” after all.



Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

115 Responses to “Princess Eugenie ‘banned’ from vacationing by her new London bosses”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. puffinlunde says:

    Saw this in the UK press yesterday – basically she has been at her new job for 10 weeks and taken 5 weeks vacation during that time

    The gallery probably expected her to have a bit more time off – they are paying for her name and not experience – however I expect the reason that they hired her was to sell art to her rich friends and contacts – she cannot do this if she’s never there!

    • LAK says:

      If they hired for to sell to her rich friends, then holidaying is where she needs to be because according to the DM’s calender of her holidays, she was away during August which is a dead months for art sales. Even the big auction houses struggle to sell anything in august.

      All the rich friends are holidaying too, so she might as well join them. Better Better network that way.

      • Green Girl says:

        That’s kind of what I’m thinking, LAK. That she “needs” to be on vacation to do her work. Oh, if we could all be so lucky!

        But perhaps her vacations aren’t productive? I can see that, if she’s going on endless vacations but isn’t coming back with even one or two solid leads for business.

    • OverFirstAve. says:

      Can they hire Kate and get her to actually work and stop her from holidaying! lol

      P.S. RoyalReporter Twitter has link to first photos of Princess Charlotte out in public, in Women’s Day mag. She’s a sweetie.
      She and George w Nanny.

    • Pondering thoughts says:

      Her rich aristo friends aren’t stupid and know about art.
      Her nouveau rich friend however … pecunia non olet.

    • Dee says:

      I’ll bet you’re right! A strategic gamble that is not paying off thus far….

    • FuefinaWG says:

      She may have said before accepting the job “look, I have these vacation days planned and I’m not going to put them on hold, so if you want me to work for you you have to know that I’ll be gone these days.” And maybe they said “OK… but don’t plan anything else until Christmas.” And then she planned something else (thinking she could push them because she’s “royal”) and they said “NO.”

  2. DanaG says:

    They take after their very lazy mother she will want them to marry rich then they can stop pretending to “work”. I do think Eugenie takes her career more seriously then beatrice. Who once again has a mystery job but is still able to take a lot of time off. It seems you in the States don’t have a problem with a Princess who prefers to holiday then work. Wondering why we don’t get any pictures of Bea on her way to work etc so far it’s all been parties in New York! Is she working?

    • puffinlunde says:

      Not just their mother – their father Prince Andrew isn’t known as “airmiles Andy” for nothing – many of his “royal work” trips are mostly vacation

    • Beatrice says:

      I wonder if this is a PR campaign by the Cambridges to take the spotlight off their laziness. I don’t doubt that Will and Kate Middleton would throw Eugenie and Beatrice under the bus to make themselves look better. Duchess Doolittle claimed to have jobs before she married but did little work between holidays.

      • bluhare says:

        If it is, then she’s giving them enough ammo for a strategic, long term attack.

        Personally, I don’t think so. Yes, I agree she was hired for her connections; however, working half the time and getting paid for full time? Apparently her new employer isn’t down with that if they’ve told her no more vacations or you’re out. I see her quitting soon.

      • FuefinaWG says:

        Maybe Duchess Dolittle’s parents (or Uncle) paid companies to say that she worked for them. She goes into a private office with her laptop and shops for 4 hours, then leaves … everyday …

      • Jib says:

        Wills works when??? And is said to work full time. It doesn’t seem like it’s possible with rugbying and following along on Harry’s charities to look like he has a care about the veterans and the poor. What this girl does is none of our business cause the taxpayers aren’t paying for her.

  3. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Such entitled brats. If I worked somewhere and she waltzed in and took that much vacation, I would be seething. Who picks up her slack when she’s not there? I always wished the best for these girls, but I guess it’s not that surprising considering who her parents are. So trashy.

    • Aussie girl says:

      Agreed, that amount of time off is absurd. I also feel that they may have hired her for her ,’name’ making it agreement that benefits her (the job) and them ( the exposure), still doesn’t cut all that excessive leave. This shows such poor work ethic and even a lack of responsibility. Making me more and more team Harry!!!

    • Fifee says:

      Fair enough, 5 weeks is a whole load of time off in that short space of time, but here in the UK most firms give 4 weeks off per year not including our public holidays which usually amount to 8 days. No doubt she’ll have that time doubled for her “royal” duties. So yes, for all it was a ridiculous amount of time off, she’s entitled to it, well most of it!

    • FLORC says:

      We are products of our parents, but not their image. We make our own way regardless of a parents faults.
      IMO this has far less to do with their parents over the bubble they grew up in. All of them. It makes life cushy and easy. You can sink into that lifestyle or you can go for better. Either way it’s their choosing and not more likely or more easily assumed because of your parents. That’s not fair.

      • taxi says:

        But how, or from whom, would they have learned anything different? They emulate their parents’ lifestyles & “work” habits.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Neither Bill nor Kate emulate their parents’ lifestyles or work. Why is it so difficult to believe that Beatrice and Eugenie are nothing like their parents?

  4. MinnFinn says:

    I bet the true story is that she took 5 days of vacation in that time period. DM must be counting weekends as vacay days to come up with 25 days off.

    • Hudson Girl says:

      You’re being kind but, The Daily Mail posted calendar pages with the day’s X’ed off. It was quite clear.
      Having worked in two, I can say that Galleries ARE open on weekends.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        @ hudson girl

        I am not a person who goes to galleries but would you say that business on weekends is more important than on week days in galleries because: more customers?

    • swack says:

      Three weeks in August means she missed 15 working days if you count Mon – Fri. So right there is over half the time she took off.

    • bluhare says:

      Hudson Girl’s right, MinnFinn. I looked at that calendar and had a hard time finding days where she did work. :)

  5. Imo says:

    I’m just so jealous at the unimaginable access to world famous art.

  6. Trillian says:

    Germany here and we DO get 6 weeks of paid vacation a year. But usually not within 6 months of starting a new job.

    • Catherine says:

      In the UK the standard is 20-25 days holiday a year, but if you’ve just started a job that would usually be a certain amount a month dependent on the month you started. I assume a a Royal there would be an arrangement in place or she’d be taking unpaid leave.

    • Pondering thoughts says:

      There is no way you can get that much holidays after just starting a new job at which ever level of company hierarchy.

    • Dhavynia says:

      You guys are l lucky, some of the companies here give you 1 week after a year if you’re lucky and some don’t even have sick time. I have 5 weeks but that’s after 20 years, I’m looking forward to the max which is 6 weeks when you reach 25 years of service. I consider myself lucky

    • Gwen says:

      @ Trillian
      This is NOT true!!!
      Germany too, i don’t know where you living, but 6 Weeks is not common/realistic, rather 21 (max 25) Days!
      ….maybe as an official, well not too much work, but big holidays….

  7. Nancy says:

    She does look like her mama. Those ginges have strong genes.

  8. Mayamae says:

    Ouch! Looks like Eugenie dislocated her hip in the second picture.

    • Konspiracytheory says:

      That caught my eye too! My kids have a connective tissue disorder, and can do crazy, bendy stuff like that – made me wonder whether she’s got one as well.

      • LAK says:

        Eugenie is a full figured hourglass with a tiny waist. If you google bikini pics of her, you will see her extreme proportions. What you are looking at is simply her natural hip. Her natural figure is amazing and lovely. The sort of figure the Kardashians are trying to buy.

        She dresses quite well for her figure ie she compliments it rather than fights with it unlike the Kardashians.

      • Mayamae says:

        @LAK, I think you’ve misinterpreted our posts. There’s nothing insulting Eugenie’s figure or style. We’re discussing the appearance of her left leg in the second picture.

        There was certainly no mention of the Kardashians being better.

      • LAK says:

        Mayamea: I think we are misunderstanding each other because I didn’t think you were snarking or being rude. I genuinely thought you were commenting on her hips, so I added my 2pence.

        And the Kardashian crack wasn’t supposed to be rude to Eugenie. Only to point out that she naturally has what they are trying to buy/sculpt. I guess I was being rude about the Kardashians.

      • Mayamae says:

        @LAK, I hear what you’re saying. I was taken aback for a moment and wondered if I’d accidentally posted in an AJ/JA thread where every single word is parsed, and one is accused of being both a hater and jealous.

      • Jaxx says:

        @Lak–I have a friend with a figure like Eugenie’s. She has a beautiful shape that looks best naked. Clothed, she can look a little dumpy if she’s not careful what she wears.

      • Konspiracytheory says:

        Yes, Mayamae and I were talking about the very awkward-looking placement of her left foot (and, in the whole ‘the leg bone is connected to the hip bone’ way, her hip as well).

  9. Anniefannie says:

    Her coworkers can’t have much respect for her. There’s nothing worse than dealing with entitled a$$holes!

  10. Matador says:

    “she won’t be holidaying again until Christmas.’”

    So what is their vacation policy, five weeks for every ten you’ve been there, refreshed every six months? If they hired her as a contract or part-time position and this was unpaid leave, I’d say no big deal. Sounds like she’s pulling full-time salary and not getting dinged for excessive leave though. No doubt people around her were up in arms, understandably so.

    • Pondering thoughts says:

      Perhaps people around her will pay her back for having to pick up her slacks. Hopefully some design a little scheme to embarrass her. It happens.

  11. LAK says:

    I always end up defending these girls because every time an article appears about them, it always starts from a place of outrage before the reality becomes apparent. And people leap to the worst conclusion without giving them the benefit of the doubt.

    We don’t know if these were pre-planned holidays and her work is perfectly fine with them as long as she doesn’t take any more for the rest of the year.

    We don’t know her work contract or what holidays are booked therein. Some jobs allow you to take pre-planned, before you started with them, holidays if you tell them at the start.

    Plus August is a dead month for art sales, if you are expecting people to come to the gallery. Lots of people take that time off knowing they won’t be able to again for rest of the year or it’s the only time it is possible to take time off.

    • Sixer says:

      I do hear you, LAK. To be fair, most Brit employers would be sympathetic to a new starter who had a holiday booked and wouldn’t accrue the days in time. But not four, five, or six holidays!

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: going by the DM’s calender of her holidays, she took 2 holidays – 4 days at Balmoral, then a big chunk of consecutive weeks in August. They are also throwing in weekends to make her day off seem more than they actually are.

        Full Disclosure: I once had a 2 different jobs (same industry) that encouraged us to go away in August and for Christmas week simply because majority of our clients were away during that time. It was a skeleton staff during that time and usually it was the interns who were stuck at the office during that time. The other weeks of the year were super busy and it was frowned upon to go away then.

      • Sixer says:

        Honestly: I do hear everything you’re saying.

        It’s just the cognitive dissonance of these non-jobs the trustafarians do that people take exception to, you know? They should never tell society at large that they have jobs the Great Unwashed wouldn’t recognise as such. They should just say they “do some work for” or somesuch.

        I think almost every non-service business shuts down over Christmas here, wouldn’t you say? That’s why Mr Sixer has those extra 3 days. With Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year’s Day all being public holidays, it’s easier just to close for the almost-fortnight and give people the extra 3 days.

    • Pondering thoughts says:

      @ LAK

      Galleries need to prepare – court artists. Collect art for sales. Compile catalogues. And that is done in the “off-season”.
      In other words: if she skipped on the preparation part then Eugenie didn’t do anything worthy for the gallery except put her name on their payroll.

      • LAK says:

        Pondering thoughts: I hear you, but we don’t know what her job entails AND clearly she’s not required to do all that if she’s allowed to holiday in the off season period.

        If her job is to pull in rich punters, which is the more likely reason for hiring her, then she might as well go on holiday with said rich punters and use her holidays as network opportunities to enlarge her address book. Do more business that way.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        @ LAK

        Are you Florc?
        I partly agree. The more people she as in her address book the better. On the one hand. On the other hand even Eugenie needs to know about the things she is selling to them and so she would have to do preparation. Even clueless nouveau riche don’t pay five-figured sums without making inquiries. I even doubt a bit that nouveau riche would buy on her advice.

        It seems to me that some people might think they might get a foot in the door with the aristo set by buying from Eugenie. It is sad.

    • bluhare says:

      LAK, you know I worship the ground you walk on most of the time but not on this one. I do understand Brits get much more time off a year than here in the US. And I suspect Eugenie’s time off was unpaid and isn’t costing the company payroll, other than the person who has to do her job when she isn’t there. But somebody must be bothered as it wouldn’t be in the paper. Do you really think the Cambridges/Wales would do it? I guess I’d hope that they aren’t that petty, but I guess I don’t discount anything in that family any more.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare: Given her industry, potential reasons she was hired and the period she took off, i’m not immediately suspicious. If she took the same time off at any other time of the year and or this becomes her pattern, i’d be right there with you.

        And yes, throwing each other under the bus isn’t new to the BRF. Remember all that business of Edward’s film company breaking a media ban in St Andrews whilst William was a student which turned out not to be true, but something fed to the press by Charles’s press person to score media points??

    • Bridget says:

      I’m guessing her work isn’t perfectly fine with it, otherwise we wouldn’t be hearing that she’s being told to “knuckle down”.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She is a private citizen. How much she works and how her employer deals with her? That isn’t any of our business.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        @ notasugarhere

        She doesn’t earn her keep but a lot of her income comes from Daddy whose income comes from the Queen whose income comes from the taxpayer.

        Therefore we should bother.
        Addtionally she does have the status of a Royal and no matter if she works as a royal society has a right to question these inequalities of status. After all her status doesn’t come frome merits.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Question all of it, every person, and why not bash the non-working official royals like Bill and Kate far more than you question the ones who are being phased out? Question every single British socialite who inherited status or a trust fund. The system is unequal and B&E are stuck in the generation that is trying to be phased out.

        B&E are not working royals. They have inherited titles that are basically meaningless. They have trust funds from their great grandmother, which is the same way William and Henry receive some of their inheritance. They have an apartment their dad pays for, technically through “his own money”. If he was funding them through his section of the Sovereign Grant that would have been screamed all over the newspapers by now.

        Non-working “working royals” Bill and Kate have an empty palace the taxpayers fund to the tune of $8 million and a country mansion where taxpayer funds are used for security and some upgrades.

        Zara and Peter receive far more from their mother that B&E receive from their father. They live rent free on a massive estate complete with royal security. Zara was just handed a huge portion of the estate. Given the way the royals monkey with taxes, odds are good that they will inherit the estate without paying any taxes. I don’t see people complaining about them, and I don’t think it is because Zara and Peter don’t have “princess” and “prince” in front of their names.

        They are all grandchildren of a monarch. They all are funded or not funded through their parents in various ways. But Beatrice and Eugenie get the bashing. I don’t think they’ve earned it, I think it comes most from people who either love Kate Middleton or hate Andrew and Sarah.

  12. Sixer says:

    We’re a bit better than you Muricans for time off, but certainly your average Brit would not be allowed time off like this.

    Minimum legal annual paid holiday entitlement is 5.6 working weeks. In effect, this is our 8 public holidays, plus 4 weeks vacation time. Some firms give more than that. Mr Sixer, for example, gets 31 days: 8 public holidays; 3 days between Christmas and New Year; 20 days to take when he likes.

    If you want extra unpaid leave, most firms would take a dim view of it (unless for some pressing reason) and say a big fat NO.

    • MinnFinn says:

      What is typical # of days for paid sick leave in the UK?

      • Sixer says:

        Not sure there is a typical for that one. The legal environment is all about sick PAY rather than TIME. I just had a look at Mr Sixer’s contract for you and it says no more than 4 weeks on no more than 3 occasions per year (for full pay). But in practise, they’re more generous: he had two surgeries for carpal tunnel the year before last and I think had 6 weeks off work in all, and they paid him full salary for that. I think entry level jobs just stick to the legal minimum though: if you’re off, you just get the government sick pay (very low amount).

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      What gets to me is the attitude. If I’m starting a new job, I want to make a good impression. I work hard, show that I’m available and motivated to help out in a crunch, show that I take the job seriously. In most jobs I’ve had, you aren’t entitled to any vacation for six months. You certainly aren’t entitled to full vacation benefits your first day. I’d be interested to know what would happen to one of her coworkers if they came in with the same attitude. She seems fine with being treated better than everyone else because of who she is, and I find that off-putting. If you are going to have a “real” job, do it right. She seems like a big old moocher, just like her mother.

      • suze says:

        Yes, this is more about attitude than official national leave policy.

        In general, as Kaisar said, Americans take a dim view of anyone who doesn’t take work “seriously” by working all the time. There is no national leave policy here , you can have anywhere from no time off to ten weeks a year off.

        Who knows though, maybe Eug is doing exactly what her employer expects? This is similar to the Willkat situation in that it is between an employee and their employer, but in Willkat’s case, the employer is the British public.

      • Sixer says:

        Suze, GNAT

        I think most Brits take exception, too. I’ll repost what I just said to LAK:

        It’s just the cognitive dissonance of these non-jobs the trustafarians do that people take exception to, you know? They should never tell society at large that they have jobs the Great Unwashed wouldn’t recognise as such. They should just say they “do some work for” or somesuch.

      • suze says:

        Thanks Sixer, I agree.

        The jobs young wealthy women about town have bear just as much resemblence to actual working stiff jobs as aristocrat marriages bear to marriages of the general populace.

        Which is to say none at all.

        That is why I find them fascinating and repugnant all at once. And why I shut down when people compare circumstances in their lives to royal lives – there is no comparison. It’s absurd to think so.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with everyone too.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Agree, Sixer.

      • Green Girl says:

        GNAT, in my own experience, you can take a vacation right away when starting a new job. The caveat is that you must tell your new company of your vacation plans BEFORE accepting the job. You don’t waltz in on your first day and say “I need vacation time in two weeks!” For all we know, these vacations may have been arranged in advance of Eugenie starting her new job.

        But in general, I agree that many workers (and I am speaking with my experience in the U.S.) typically need to work a certain number of months before they even think about asking for vacation time. It can vary depending on the company and even the industry.

    • OSTONE says:

      Why wasn’t I born on the UK or in Europe? If I get sick and miss work, and if I want to get paid, I have to dip on to my vacation bank. The vacation is 2 weeks a year. I am required to work holidays except for thanksgiving and Christmas. I cannot take off the day after thanksgiving or Christmas. For the “first world” the USA is way behind in labor laws.

  13. Lea says:

    somehow i have problems believing the stories when the Daily Mail says “sources told”. Who should that be? The boss talking to the press about his employess vacations? Unlikely. The firms for which Windors work likely have non disclosure agreements in place and have to deal with security for the royal workers. Beatrice had to quit her sony job after the emails were hacked because of safety concerns. No way would someone at the gallery talk about when Eugenie works or not.

    There is no source, there is just some journo who saw a picture and then created a story.
    And seriously how does it work to make free with an employment contract? Eugenie had to subscribe a contract, so it´s impossible that she just can stay at home or make holiday without her boss´permission or consequences.
    If she makes what she wants then her boss is an idiot and should finally fire her. But if this is just a part-time job then yes she can “work just 50% of time”

    • The Original Mia says:

      ITA. There’s no way a company would leak this type of information. Could it have been a disgruntled employee? Yep, but we have no idea of the context of this calendar or the agreement made between Eugenie and her employer.

    • The Original G says:

      +1. It’s ridiculous to think that a business would make the terms of an employment agreement or an employee’s performance management regime public. And, to think this could happen in the case of a royal, is preposterous. The DM is just exploiting the the public’s antipathy to the rich.

  14. Karen says:

    When I started my last job, I worked 2 days then took 2.5 weeks off (even though I could not accrue that many days off by the end of the year). It was a preplanned vacation and I offered to start afterwards but they wanted to lock me in. I’m assuming this company knew. I mean it sounds like they were pre planned and the company really wanted her and told her she could have a light summer. Now they expect her to work a full schedule which she is by missing a party in nyc. When the Yorks are in the UK they’re used as bad press to build up the immediate royal family. Charles v Andrew.

  15. chloe says:

    As much as I would like to side eye her for taking all of this time off, she’s more there to sell art to her rich friends, I’m sure they want her in the gallery now since there are shows coming up and they want her famous friends to come support her. Now if she was working in an office (like I do) and she took all of this time off I would be furious. I’m constantly amazed of the new employees crying about not getting any time off as soon as they start, I worked for five years at 2 weeks off a year and then got 3 weeks after that and then I finally got 4 weeks after 12 years, unfortunately 4 weeks is the max.

  16. Talie says:

    In America, we unfortunately don’t have the same philosophy that August should be a dead month. Everyone is still hustling and only gets their one week.

  17. seesittellsit says:

    They really are the poster children for getting rid of the monarchy. Why don’t they just get married and start families so they can loaf their way into middle age and stop trying to pretend they are really just like other working people. The York contingent certainly hasn’t done the monarchy any favors.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie aren’t working royals, they are private citizens. However much they work or don’t doesn’t reflect as poorly on the monarchy as the laziness of W&K. Zara and Peter have enormous privileges, ditto Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto, they just hide them a lot better.

      Since fewer people despise Anne, Zara and Peter’s behavior and perks are questioned a lot less. I suspect if Margaret was still alive and living the Mustique high-life, Linley and Sarah would be in the firing line as much as B&E. IMO, the criticism has less to do with these two twenty-something trustfunders with wealthy friends trying to find their way, and more about how much Sarah and Andrew are hated.

  18. Ncboudicca says:

    Aw, c’mon folks, by my reckoning she still worked more than Willy and Katie put together in the same time period!

  19. suze says:

    Since they aren’t official working royals, I think Bea and Eug should move away from the public stage. I am not sure if they are seeking the limelight or if they are being hounded by the press. A bit of both, maybe.

    Really they are private citizens related to the Queen. So whatever they do is really not a matter of public domain.

    • LAK says:

      They are transitioning to a position where they won’t be hounded at all, but apparently the press won’t leave them be, yet. It’s really none of our business how much time she has off work or how well she’s doing said job since she’s employed by a private company.

      However, this happens all the time with young royals. I remember a time when Frederick Windsor, Gabrielle Windsor, David Linley, Zara, Helen Windsor were in the press for going about their business. Even that one who was shamed for having a baby out of wedlock. The only royal who wasn’t plastered all over the news, except for her wedding, was Sarah Chatto and that is only memorable because it was the first official event attended by Sophie Wessex as a royal GF. And Peter.

      Eventually it will shift to James and Louise and PGtips and Charlotte.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      @suze Aren’t they in-line to the throne?

      • LAK says:

        Bridget: indeed.

        Pumpkin pie: yes they are, but whilst we can never say never, it’s unlikely that the throne will go to them.

        Further, it’s been made very clear that they are not part of a working royal firm in the future, so they are encouraged to be private citizens.

    • Imo says:

      This is the attitude for the Yorks but what about Carole, Pippa, James, Cressida, Chelsy etc etc? The public vs private personae angle doesn’t always apply to gossip.

      • suze says:

        Well true although I personally try to stay away from most Midd gossip. Cressida and Chelsy were only fair game during their dating Harry years, what they do now is their own biz.

        It’s hard to parse what is part of this is the medias doing and how much any of these folks are doing to grab attention.

      • LAK says:

        With the exception of Chelsey, the others have been courting publicity for their ventures. They’ve made themselves public figures and use their royal adjacent connections to advance their public personas.

      • bluhare says:

        To piggyback off LAK: thereby making them fair game.

  20. Katydid20 says:

    Meanwhile, Harry is still off working at a military school visit according to the DM. Gosh I respect that guy, they just need to toss all the rest of them (including his lazy brother) and just let him take over. Then it won’t matter what the rest of them do.

  21. amp122076 says:

    Fergie is a disaster.

  22. JenniferJustice says:

    I guess I get that an art gallery finds value in a royal’s connections and hopes they can sell to their friends, but it still grates me that anybody would be hired for any job they did not go to school for and are not qualified for. Seriously, I find that beyond repugnant. No wonder these people are self-entitled lazy nitwits. Nobody makes them work. Nobody encourages education and independence and Heaven forbid you do something solid and meaningful with your life and what with all that influence – the possibilities are endless. What a waste!

    • Stephanie says:

      How does having a history of art degree and working at 1 gallery and interning at another not qualify wtf

      • JenniferJustice says:

        My bad. I swear I read in the article that she was hired for her connections, not because she is qualified, but I re-read and don’t see that, so I take back my “not qualified” in terms of education, but I can’t recind on her being truly qualified for the job. Did she have an amazing track record at paddles8 when this new job “lured” her? No. She hadn’t made a name for herself selling art. She just already had a name period – a royal name and that is why they tempted her with a lucrative salary she did not deserve and has yet to earn. Sorry, that’s BS!

        And I stick by my assertion that the royals seem to waste their lives wandering around parties and playing dress-up. They could be trying to make a substantive difference with their connections and name, but instead they throw that by the wayside in the name of “art”.

    • LAK says:

      What Stephanie said.

      She also interned at Christie’s auction house during her time at university.

      So I guess she knows something about art. Load knows she didn’t go to university for a MRS degree.

  23. Amy M. says:

    It is true vacation time is more generous in Europe. I deal with French publishers on a daily basis and trying to get anything from them in the summer is like trying to talk to a wall. It’s all tumbleweed and desert. August is particularly bad. It is not frowned upon to take off 3-4 weeks at a time then. My coworkers don’t understand how anyone can go on vacation for more than a week. Two weeks are consiered extravagant.

    However it’s fall now. Welcome to the real world Eugenie.

  24. Pumpkin Pie says:

    Doesn’t QE have anything to say about this disgraceful and shameless bunch (like the sisters, their mother, father, Bill and Kate Dolittle)? I don’t understand why these vacationing and other scandals seem to be tolerated by the Royal institution or whatever that’s called.

  25. me says:

    I have a lot of family in the U.K. and the amount of vacations they take is ridiculous. They are given so much time off from work. Here in Canada, you get 2 weeks after working for one year.

    • Dvaria says:

      In Copenhagen, my taxi driver told me he gets 6 weeks vacation a year and he’s only worked there for 2 years…I barely get a week to take a cruise after 4 years because its looked down upon to take more than 5 consecutive days off for anything other than an emergency. America needs to get its vacation sorted out because the workplace can survive.

  26. VesperNIte says:

    Off topic but Beatrice’s face bugs! No she seriously has a scary looking face. Her eyes aren’t normal and her teeth are huge and horsey. I’m mean…I know, but it was bugging me.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Bashing her for her genetic inheritance? Because she doesn’t feel the need to go under the knife to change the fact that she looks exactly like a young Queen Victoria?

    • jammypants says:

      yea I’m going to be shallow and say that they didn’t luck out on the genetic lottery.

  27. Citresse says:

    I guess there’s another way of looking at this situation. Eugenie’s work may be excellent and she’s valued by her employer so the “banned” vacations condition is in place.
    If Eugenie wasn’t valued by her employer, the vacations wouldn’t be an issue and she’d be quietly let go while she was away.

  28. Sarah01 says:

    I wonder if these royals know how to live life, it’s like their life fills in between vacation time. How dreary and boring.
    She was hired to flog art to her rich relatives and friends, that’s why they’ve kept her not for get work ethic. I’m sure the bulk of the pay check is the commission she gets fur selling. It’s weird her mum was in New York a lot and so are her kids too, curious why they don’t “work” in Europe.

  29. Jessica says:

    I don’t see the problem. About half the people we hire at my workplace have holidays booked in the first few months of starting. People move jobs all the time, sometimes very suddenly if they’ve been headhunted. Many of the people we hire weren’t actively looking for new jobs until we reached out, so of course they made other plans.

    Most just take it as unpaid leave or sometimes we’ll get them in for a bit of training/settling in but set their proper start date back.

    Also there are some jobs and industries where you can pretty much do whatever you like so long as your achieving what the company wants from you. A lot of people in my industry take 10-15 weeks off a year, often in big chunks. Hanging about in the office wasting time is frowned upon, you do what you need to do and then you get out. So long as your work is up to scratch time off isn’t something that’s worried about.