At the wedding of Peter Phillips and Harriet Sperling in Kemble last Saturday,Prince William kissed Princess Beatrice on the cheek—a gesture that has divided royal watchers . according to reports from the Daily Mail and royal commentators, the public show of affection is being interpreted as a calculated move by King Charles to bring Beatrice and her sister Eugenie back into the royal fold after a National Audit report revealed they live rent-free in palace properties. the sisters have kept a low profile following the scandals surrounding their parents, Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew.

The rent-free palace privilege that sparked the backlash

The controversy doesn't start with the kiss—it builds on a National Audit report, as reported by the Daily Mail and other outlets, which revealed that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have never paid rent for their apartments in St. James's Palace.. This disclosure has fueled public anger, with many viewing the sisters as beneficiaries of an unfair system while the monarchy faces scrutiny over its finances. The report's timing—days before the wedding—made William's display of affection especially loaded.

Tom Sykes vs. Tom Bower: Dueling interpretations of a cheek kiss

Royal expert and author Tom Sykes,writing in The Royalist, framed the kiss as a deliberate power move by King Charles—a signal that the cousins are being welcomed back under the monarch's terms. "Yesterday was an expression of Charles pulling power back," Sykes told the Daily Mail, adding that William's deference shows the "military foundational structures" of the family in action. But Tom Bower, another seasoned royal biographer, disagrees. He told the Daily Mail that embracing the sisters in public is "not clever PR" and that any warmth should be shown "beyond the cameras." Bower argues that the sisters are "tainted by their parents' vulgar greed" and that public affection risks alienating an already skeptical public.

What Phil Dampier's Sandringham remark signals about the royal rift

Not all experts see a strategic calculation. Royal author Phil Dampier told the Mail that William and the King have "always been very fond of Beatrice and Eugenie" and do not hold them responsible for their parents' scandals. He noted that the sisters remain "very much in the family fold" and are expected to receive invitations to Christmas at Sandringham "and other events." This view suuggests continuity rather than a calculated rehabilitation—the Yorks were never truly outcast, only keeping a low profile. Yet this perspective overlooks the simmering public resentment. The same week that revealed their rent-free living, the sisters were seen warmly welcomed at a family wedding. That juxtaposiiton, Bower argues, "does look bad."

The one key question the experts haven't answered

Missing from the debate is any direct comment from Beatrice or Eugenie themselves. Are they grateful for the royal support? Do they recognize the potential reputational damage their parents' associations have caused? Neither sister has spoken publicly since the National Audit report emerged, leaving observers to rely on body language and royal watchers' speculation. Also unclear is whether King Charles himself intends any broader policy on housing privileges for working and non-working royals—a question that touches on the monarchy's long-term transparency.