To think that the royals aren't priveleged

(136 Posts)
pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:05:50

People keep saying this, but I wouldn't want their lives for anything. The only people I would less like to be would be people suffering abuse, or dreadful illnesses.

I don't think there should be a royal family, it's an outdated concept to have hereditary holders of power. But clearly it's not easy to get rid of, and even if we did, generations would still be scrutinised by the media as if they still were.

It looks awful, permanently being in the limelight.

You might have a great house, but no real privacy.
You'd have loads of money, OK no worries, but beyond a certain amount, what's the point?
You can't go anywhere freely, without feeling you're being watched, I'd hate that.
And you have no real choices. I know some have had military careers, but that's about it (for the main royals anyway), you can't suddenly decide to be a doctor, or teacher or whatever. Hell I'd be annoyed if someone told me I COULDN'T work on a checkout.
You can't make choices for your kids either. You can't just decide to send them to a local school and brownies, even if you think it's best for them, because of all the baggage that goes with it, and safety concerns. I would not feel like an autonomous parent in those circumstances.

I wouldn't do it for anything!

grovel Mon 04-Mar-13 16:34:40

ovenchips, that's pretty fair. I suppose I could muster sympathy for an heir who really didn't want the job but felt duty-bound to play the game.

ovenchips Mon 04-Mar-13 16:29:23

If I was racking my brain for someone to feel sorry for, the royal family would not even fleetingly register.

I mean seriously why would you waste your time feeling sorry for them?

Anyone who would waste time on such an unworthy target of sympathy, I am utterly convinced, would sharp change their mind if they were able to experience that extraordinary privilege for themselves for ooh a day or two.

I guess it's possible you might not choose it for yourself, but after experiencing it, you sure as shit wouldn't feel sorry for them.

garlicbrain Mon 04-Mar-13 15:51:39

Of course they're privileged. And they get shedloads of privacy.

I would venture to say that, with the government snooping my bank accounts and medical records, demanding that I regale an endless stream of unqualified strangers with my embarrassing symptoms, dictating what I may and may not do - and assorted nosey parkers trying to catch me 'cheating' - taxpayers have more control over my life than the royals'. And taxpayers give me far less money than them. A single royal banquet costs three times my annual income! I wouldn't mind getting the dinner, let alone hosting the damn thing in one of my cavernous, taxpayer-funded residences.

Crinkle77 Mon 04-Mar-13 15:44:27

I would not want their lives either. And to have to traipse round day after day doing all these visits must be so boring

MechanicalTheatre Mon 04-Mar-13 15:42:40

You know, they really do have a lot of privacy, thinking about it.

My dad comes from the next town along from Balmoral where the royals spend their summer. They get their photo taken by the press when they come out of the church the first Sunday they're there, and then there's no press there the rest of their trip. I'm guessing they have some sort of agreement.

My parents used to see Princess Anne in the town all the time. Nobody really cared/was particularly interested, she certainly didn't have people following her around the place.

There is so much ground around all of their castles/palaces...it's not that hard for them to get privacy. Sure you can't go to the supermarket. Meh, I'd be pretty over-joyed if I never had to go food shopping. They all seem to be pretty outdoorsy, which it would be easy enough for them to take part in.

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 09:54:00

They have plenty of privacy.

StuntGirl Mon 04-Mar-13 09:38:05

YY to expat and seeker.

seeker Mon 04-Mar-13 09:34:57

All they have to do is say "no, thank you"

expatinscotland Mon 04-Mar-13 09:34:03

'Can you imagine being born knowing that it doesn't matter what you do, one day you will be king/queen.'

It's possible for them to abdicate.

niceguy2 Mon 04-Mar-13 09:31:14

@Nancy

But that luxury the royals 'enjoy' comes at a huge price. They have no privacy. Everyone they befriend, they have to worry if they are being used or not. They can't do everyday things in anonymity. Kate can't even pop into her local supermarket without it being splashed across the glossies. And what about your kids? Would you really prefer to have kids knowing they MUST be protected by armed police 24x7 just so you can live in a few nice homes?

What they are is determined from the minute you are born. Can you imagine being born knowing that it doesn't matter what you do, one day you will be king/queen. A job which is pretty meaningless nowadays in practice other than filling magazines with photos.

Thanks but no thanks.

expatinscotland Mon 04-Mar-13 08:45:56

'We did actually manage perfectly well in previous centuries without everyone having solid homes. Living rough doesn't have to mean lying in central london under cardboard, with every other wanker waiting to beat you up'

Who's 'we'? The tens of millions who died as a direct result of living in foul, insect-ridden hovel excuses for shelter? Humankind survived the Black Plague and the atomic bomb, too.

pouffepants Mon 04-Mar-13 07:41:59

LRD, nothing to do with being clever.
Everything to do with not being addicted to substances, not living in fear of other people (pimps, traffickers etc). People with problems are unable to see, or use their choices sometimes. There was no reason for me to sleep on the streets for more than a couple of nights, because I could always find someone to help me out. Long term rough sleepers don't have that luxury.

We did actually manage perfectly well in previous centuries without everyone having solid homes. Living rough doesn't have to mean lying in central london under cardboard, with every other wanker waiting to beat you up.

This is by the by anyway. The point was, that it's not easy at all, otherwise I wouldn't have used it as an example. It's bloody hard, but I'd still choose it over what i perceive to be the royal lifestyle.

Bluegrass Mon 04-Mar-13 00:18:11

I would love all that...but only if I could stay anonymous and have the freedom to actually enjoy it. I wouldn't want the life of a Royal

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 00:10:01

They're about as privileged as it's possible to be and it makes me laugh when people say they wouldn't want their life....really?

You wouldn't want to have endless amazing properties at your disposal? To never have to worry about money? To life in the utmost luxury all your life and only ever sample the very best of everything?

...I fucking would.

Bluegrass Mon 04-Mar-13 00:07:49

I thought the OP was specifically talking about the "privileges" that being royalty brings them. As I said earlier, I think I would be much happier if I was an aristo like the Duke of Westminster, you get all the benefits but without the downside of living life in a gilded cage forever gawped at and gossiped about by the rest of the world.

Pandemoniaa Mon 04-Mar-13 00:01:03

You don't need to be Royal tohave these, you just need to be rich. If they stopped being Royal they would still be very rich and would be able to tick all three boxes.

You've taken my examples out of context though. The OP asked why the Royal Family were privileged. Out of a much longer list, I selected those three. To illustrate why the Royal Family were privileged. Obviously they apply to very rich people too but the question was not merely about very rich people.

Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for clarifying. And you assume you're clever and that's why you'd be fine. hmm

You are very ignorant if you don't believe people on the streets are victims of violence.

thezebrawearspurple Sun 03-Mar-13 23:18:06

They can always give it up and live a private life somewhere else. They would still be more privileged than 99% of the population but without the 'drawbacks' (and special advantages) of being a Royal.

It's obviously not that bad considering nobody is leaving!!! Can't blame them, life on permanent holiday courtesy of the taxpayer, the biggest problem in your life having your photo taken long lens on the beach or occasionally having to trip over a few photographers.

They have a hell of a lot more freedom than most. All the freedom money buys.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 23:03:54

I have been homeless, but due to presence of mind, and help from others, I have never slept rough for more than a night or 2. This would be the case if I was homeless tomorrow.

I don't believe that someone of sound mind was sleeping where they could be run over by a lorry.

Have you slept on the streets, as you implied, and as I said I assumed you must have done - else you'd come across as so incredibly rude to judge?

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 22:55:49

Someone SPECIFICALLY asked me if I had slept on sofas for many months, I replied to say I had.

I at no point equated that to sleeping on the streets.

Thanks. Sorry for writing it wrongly.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 22:37:37

Oh yes, I totally agree with you.

I know, and I wondered whether to correct my post.

I was thinking of the original post, which referred to being 'on the streets'.

It now transpires that the poster is talking about sleeping on someone's sofa or floor. I am terribly sorry she ended up in that situation and it must have been very upsetting.

But it is digusting to pretend it's the same as being on the streets, and it's disgusting to belittle what happens to people on the streets and blithely claim that you'd cope with it better than with being royal, because you've had a totally different experience and coped with that.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 22:33:34

LRD, sleeping on sofas is homeless.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now