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I don't think there should be a royal family, it's an outdated concept to have hereditary holders of power.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!

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:09:52

Me neither - I like the stuff I can do and DS can do without all the worries a Monarch would have.

Will Kate join NCT and be able to spontaneously pop out on playdates / trips to a cafe / park / playgroup etc?

What did Diana do when William and Harry were born? Did she interact with other mums?

And I just love the freedom to go out places. Spontaneously.

fairylightsinthesnow Sun 03-Mar-13 20:10:55

I agree with you OP but many won't. The usual view on here seems to be that because they are so rich they can't possibly have any problems, or at least deserve no sympathy for the ones they do have. The amount each of us contribute per year to the royals is in the tiny numbers of pence, most of their wealth is hereditary and dates back centuries so unless you want a genuine revolution (cos that worked so well in France and Russia) we're stuck with them smile

TraineeBabyCatcher Sun 03-Mar-13 20:11:31

I full agree with what you're staying about their lives, and I think the same applys to the children of celebs. They all have these lives thrust on them with little choice and its very difficult, if even possible, to just walk away.

PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn Sun 03-Mar-13 20:13:10

They're incredibly privileged. Doesn't mean their lives are good/fun, and like you I wouldn't swap with Kate in a million years. But they are privileged.

Lucyellensmum95 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:15:29

I would much rather be a member of the royal family than be a single mother on benefits! Nup, im not about to lose any sleep over the lack of privacy the royals get - they do ok out of it. I think they generally can keep out of the limelight - prince edward anyone? doens't have have a production company (albeit not very succesfull?) Prince Harry doesn't seem too shy about things - quite happy to engage in general student twattishness.

So sorry OP, YABU

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:15:56

Think we need the privilege checklist here:

The privilege of being Royal
The privilege of not being Royal

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:16:03

What do they gain from the privilege?
Compared to the average bod, not the starving of the world.

MmeLindor Sun 03-Mar-13 20:16:27

I think you have to separate the issues of privacy and privilege.

They are incredibly privileged but they have no privacy.

Those who were born into it, have to put up with the latter, while still (presumably) enjoying the former.

Those who marry into the family have no reason to complain, least of all Kate, as she knew exactly what she was getting into.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:17:30

Been a single (widowed) mother on benefits. Don't want dh2 to die, but apart from that I'd rather be in that position again, than be a royal.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:18:34

I agree about, I'm talking about people born into it who had no choice from the cradle.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:18:50

Sorry, I agree about Kate.

Well they are priviledged.

But I wouldnt enjoy the constant spotlight or the endless Royal Duties.

I love them. YANBU. But they are priviledged.

eavesdropping Sun 03-Mar-13 20:21:17

YABU. Of course they're privileged. Doesn't mean I would want their life though.

DontmindifIdo Sun 03-Mar-13 20:22:15

It's not just that they have money, they aren't allowed to spend it without it being discussed in the press, and woe betide any who are see as spending their money on frivilous things. I quite like the younger generation are seeming to be allowed to go on holiday to sunny places, but still being slagged off for it, whereas we're quite happy for them to holiday in the scottish rain, spending about the same once you factor in the cost of running Balmoral, it's not the money, it's that we don't want them to ever look like they are having fun...

I truely believe that even if you got rid of monachy tomorrow - all current living and the next generation (so Will & Kate's baby, any Harry produces etc) will be filling the Daily Mail and Hello, they still will be watch and commented on and generally seen to be 'lacking'.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:24:13

What is it that's privileged about their lives?

ChairmanWow Sun 03-Mar-13 20:24:17

Nobody's holding a gun to their heads. If their lives are so shit they can try their luck in the outside world. They're not exactly climbing over each other to escape Balmoral are they?

Pandemoniaa Sun 03-Mar-13 20:24:20

They are incredibly privileged. There are undoubtedly drawbacks to being Royal although it is important to understand that anyone born into the Royal Family knows no differently. However, you cannot say that they aren't privileged.

Pandemoniaa Sun 03-Mar-13 20:26:54

What is it that's privileged about their lives?

How long a list do you want? For starters:

1. No money worries. Ever.
2. Secure accommodation for your lifetime.
3. Staff who exist entirely to do your bidding.

WafflyVersatile Sun 03-Mar-13 20:27:19

They could give it all up of course. If it's so awful.

I think it depends on whether your'e born into it or not. Kate will feel the restrictions more than the others. She'll probably feel the privilege more too. Pri

I wouldn't want to be a CEO either. My life so far hasn't really prepared me for it.

I would not want the whole country to be informed every time I get the shits.

aquashiv Sun 03-Mar-13 20:27:27

They are more privileged that you or I could ever possibly imagine.
I am not sure on missing out on some NCT classes is something anyone even Katie should really give a rats arse over.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:29:22

I think I'm incredibly privileged.

Family income circa 30k, I want for nothing.
Secure roof over head, secure tenancy.
Plenty of free time.
I dress like a scruff and no-one cares.
Know loads of people from all walks of life, that truly is a massive privilege.

I can't see anything in their lives to covet at all.


They may not be privileged in the same way as some other people, but they are hugely privileged.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be one of them for worlds, but I would do the decent thing and give it up.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:31:22

Never been to an NCT class, but would give a massive rats arse if my choices for activities were restricted in any way at all.

MmeLindor Sun 03-Mar-13 20:31:40

The definition of privilege is 'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group'

So yes, they are privileged, in that they have advantages and opportunities that normal people do not have.

Do these privileges come with disadvantages, with a flip-side? Undoubtedly - and I think that this is what you are talking about.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:32:45

Is it possible to give it up though? Would they not still be hounded?

But I agree, if it were possible, they should.

StuntGirl Sun 03-Mar-13 20:35:13

They never have to think about money or security, ever. They're beyond privileged.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:36:08

Do you think Kate will be able to do what other mums from her background will normally do with their children?

Maybe she will - but it could be incredibly hard knowing who to trust and the obvious security needs.

monsterchild Sun 03-Mar-13 20:36:39

They are incredibly privileged, they have responsibility, but that has no relationship to privilege. I'd be more than happy to have that kind of responsibility and limelight.

ReturnOfEmeraldGreen Sun 03-Mar-13 20:37:16

How sweet of you to be concerned about the Royal Family. You can bet your last penny that they don't give a fuck about you.

Cherriesarelovely Sun 03-Mar-13 20:37:17

Well, yes, they are lucky in many ways. They never have to worry about paying bills for a start. They get to go to some amazing places and have people do lots of the boring stuff for them that I hate doing, cleaning, cooking etc, have great holidays.

On the other hand they don't have alot of privacy, are scrutinised constantly by the press and would find life very difficult if they wanted to tread a different path or were gay for example.

I love my life but I wouldn't mind being royal for a week or so every year!

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:39:16

Seriously, I'd rather live on the street, free to come and go as I please, than live their lives. That's far more important to me than money and security.

amillionyears Sun 03-Mar-13 20:39:26

If I remember correctly, there was a poll a few years ago about who would want to be a royal.
90% said no, and only 10% said yes.

timidviper Sun 03-Mar-13 20:45:49

They are very privileged in some ways and yet have quite sad lives in others. It has got very much worse as communications have improved, apparently when young the Queen and Prince Philip used to sneak out to the pictures and were never recognised, I doubt William and Kate could do that.

You have to remember their privilege is not just money but is also opportunities. Prince Charles must be the lowest ever academic achiever to get into Oxbridge, Prince Andrew had a job as an ambassador for industry despite no experience, etc.

It's all debatable but I tend to think that the inconveniences are more than balanced out by the incredible wealth and power they have.

pouffe - what's the point of hypotheticals? No-one lives on the streets 'free to come and go' as they please. Lots of people die on the streets, though.

PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn Sun 03-Mar-13 20:50:24

I'd like to qualify my first reply about not being Kate in a million years... A Mnetter described how on her lovely beach holiday in Thailand an noticed a 7-8 year old girl washing herself repeatedly in the taps provided. The MNer eventually found out she was of course washing herself between clients sad I'd rather be Kate than her. I'd rather be Kate than a teenage girl stuck on a dead-end estate with no hope of a job or getting out. And a million other rubbish ways of living. I'd rather be any member of the royal family than any of those. And for that reason I think they are privileged and don't waste much energy feeling sorry for them. I also think I'm privileged as fuck and thank my stars I was born where I was, in the era we're in.

Also, I do have a bit of inside knoweldge: I know someone who was a Queen's Equerry and he said that their lives, when not on engagements, were pretty lovely. And even the Queen gets to escape when she's at Balmoral.

pouffe - you'd like to be freezing in winter, drenched when it rains, pissed upon by drunk assholes, verbally and physically abused, raped, treated like the lowest of the low and almost certainly with mental or substance abuse problems rather than be Kate? hmm

JaquelineHyde Sun 03-Mar-13 20:50:48

pouffepants You would rather live on the street free to come and go!!!
Seriously shock shock

So you would rather sleep rough in all weathers, not know where your next meal is coming from, be at risk of attack, rape and general abuse from members of the public etc, etc I could go on...

NO you bloody wouldn't so don't say such ridiculous things.

I have slept rough, luckily it was only for a few nights when I was a run away at 16, I slept in town centre toilets and it was the most distressing scarey thing I have ever, ever had to do.

Oh but yes I was free to come and go from my crummy town centre toilet so I should be grateful angry

I would rather be royal any fucking day!

PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn Sun 03-Mar-13 20:51:17

timidviper v good point about opportunities.

MmeLindor Sun 03-Mar-13 20:51:41

I think you are muddling 'lucky' with 'privileged' tbh.

I would not say that you were 'privileged' with a family income of £30k, a roof over your head, and free to dress as a scruff. I would say that is, for the society in which you live, pretty much normal.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:54:42

Plenty of people live rough quite happily, of course many do die also.

In my present incarnation as a mother, I would be housed in some respect. I know because it's happened, and I lived in a hostel, my favourite ever place I lived.

If single, I'm confident I could sort myself out quite quickly, and could survive on my own, unless hit by some illness.

None of this fills me with horror. Being in the royal family does.

PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn Sun 03-Mar-13 20:58:58

I think the amount of people who live rough happily would be equivalent to them number of happy, fulfilled prostitutes - ie you get them but they're... uncommon.

pouffe my friend who was a young mother was stuck in a hostel where she had to barricade her door at night, and take all her stuff with her or it got nicked. She was there for 4 months. sad

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 20:59:48

I guess I'm not scared of being on the lower rungs because I've been there, and know how to deal with it. I know where to go for help.

But being royal? I don;t know, just looks like being trapped, and I have no clue what you would do to improve the situation.

JaquelineHyde Sun 03-Mar-13 21:00:27

I don't think I have ever read such utter tosh on MN before and trust me in the 7-8yrs I have been on here I have read some shite.

Your last post pouffe really is the winner and could if you are not careful make you sound like an utter fool.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:01:49

You wouldn't rather live on the street. And you don't know the meaning of privileged either.

They do not have to do it. Any one of them could just say "no, don't want this" and fuck off to South America for the rest of their lives.

Yes, their lives must be difficult, even though I hate the idea of the royal family, I have a hell of a lot of respect for the queen for keeping going when she could easily just say she didn't want to do all the engagements. I think she takes her duties seriously and that is to be admired.

However, the fact that she is still going at 86, able to work what is essentially a full-time job, points to how much privilege buys you. My mum and dad are 60, and they're already knackered after a day's work, but then they don't have private doctors, all the decent food money can buy etc.

Alittlestranger Sun 03-Mar-13 21:03:49


I wouldn't trade places with Kate Middleton for the world, but they are all privileged.

And the royals have far more privacy than you realise, that being the point.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:03:52

Oh what fucking offensive shit.

I have never met a person who happily slept rough and I used to work with homeless men. I've met people who did it because they couldn't fit into society and I've met people who couldn't deal with the respsonsibility of rent/bills/job, but I've never met one who was happy to be on the streets.

Bluegrass Sun 03-Mar-13 21:04:22

"1. No money worries. Ever.
2. Secure accommodation for your lifetime.
3. Staff who exist entirely to do your bidding."

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.

PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn Sun 03-Mar-13 21:04:51

Mechanical well quite. I met the Queen once and her skin is amaaaaazing. I know it's partly genetic but its also years of being totally looked after.

I gather she takes her position and privilege very seriously.

Alittlestranger Sun 03-Mar-13 21:06:28

And being royal isn't a life sentence. Even the queen could retire and there are minor royals who have renounced their claim to the throne. Just because you're born or marry into the royal family doesn't actually mean you have to embrace it. But the "firm" does instill a very strong sense of obligation and duty.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:07:09

There's not a lot of point in living to 86 if that's all you can do though is there?

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:07:14

I don't think it's privacy - more the lack of freedom to live day to day as most people have that I'd hate.

I have no idea how William and Harry were brought up and how Diana interacted with other parents and the freedom they had - but I think that's an incredibly important part of childhood and being a parent.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:08:12

OK, I take the point, you could opt out if you wanted to. But the lifestyle just looks dire.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:08:38

Yes Kim, that's more what I meant.

StuntGirl Sun 03-Mar-13 21:10:29

Don't worry pouffe - I don't think there's an imminent chance of you becoming royalty. You can relax hmm

PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn Sun 03-Mar-13 21:10:36

pouffe she also has kids, grandkids, plenty of interests that she has the money (and time) to indulge in, good friends... I mean, other than the fact she can't go to the supermarket by herself I'd say her life has been pretty fucking good.

That's the only thing you've got that she hasn't, and she's got plenty you don't.

FeckOffCup Sun 03-Mar-13 21:13:38

YABU, they are very privileged, you can bet that they all get much higher standards of education and healthcare than your average person, I'm betting Kate won't be left to fend for herself on a 4 berth postnatal ward, in pain from stitches and weak from blood loss. The lack of privacy may be an inconvenience but IMHO it's a fair trade off for what they get out of it.

Bluegrass Sun 03-Mar-13 21:14:46

I'd much rather belong to the Duke of Westminster's family. He's worth about 4 billion quid, owns a large chunk of London, a Duke is only a step down from royalty but most people would walk past him or his children in the street without a second glance, the papers ignore him and no one harps on about his family spending their (also inherited) wealth on holidays or yachts. Sounds like a far far better life to me!

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:14:53

I've been shouted at again today, because xmil wanted my mobile number for some reason. I have to have one for work.

I absolutely refuse to give it to anyone else except work, because I can't bear people being able to contact me when I'm out. I know I don't have to answer, but people expect you to, so I mostly say I don't have one.

I'm stupidly protective of my right to swan about as I wish, and I think that's why this hit a nerve. I really would do most things rather than be tracked everywhere.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:15:14

Good friends - does she?

That's a serious question. Do you think the Queen has had the opportunity like most people have to develop good friendships?

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:16:08

"I'm stupidly protective of my right to swan about as I wish, and I think that's why this hit a nerve. "

Agree with that.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:16:52

Panpiper, what would i want that she's got? I promise to answer honestly.

The only thing I might vaguely fancy would be a small boat.

amillionyears Sun 03-Mar-13 21:18:46

I think pouffe that for you, you feel able to cope if you were on the streets, but dont think you could cope with being a royal.

Alittlestranger Sun 03-Mar-13 21:19:34

Yes. The Queen, like all the royals, has some exceptionally close friends. Can you trust that none of your friends would shop you to the Sundays if you were suddenly of national interest? If you're Queen you can't do superficial friendships, there has to be trust, loyalty etc.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:19:57

That's about the sum of it.

seeker Sun 03-Mar-13 21:20:10

Heart bleeding as needful.

Sorry, but I think 'hitting a nerve' is not sufficient reason.

I may be out of line here - I've not lived on the streets and I am assuming pouffe has. But I still think she is being very dismissive of the obvious privilege the monarchy enjoy.

It is perfectly understandable to pity the royals for aspects of their lives.

It is not understandable - and it is rather disgusting - to pretend that greater privilege doesn't exist, just because we feel sorry for someone or for how we imagine we'd feel in that situation. That is self-indulgent rubbish - I'm sorry, but it is.

The royals are wealthy, on average very long-lived because they receive excellent healthcare, they are protected from physical harm and they have many, many, many roofs over their heads. They are hugely privileged compared to the vast majority of the world's population and to pretend otherwise is to ignore people who are genuinely suffering.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:28:09

I think pouffe is talking more about the lack of freedom than privilege.

Both young Royals in the Forces. Just like their Uncle. Even Charles had a go. No "normal" jobs for them - yes, Edward had a go in the theatre world after his attempt at the Marines.

No freedom to choose without considering all the consequences and how it will be seen by the media and the "establishment".

And Kate - well I'm sure she loves William because she has made a choice that I would never want to have made.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:29:59

I haven't lived on the streets but I've been homeless and sleeping on sofas. It is unbelievably shit and it makes you feel like shit about yourself.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:30:20

Absolutely not comparing them to the starving of the world, clearly we are all privileged in this country to not be living in a famine although it may be difficult to provide adequately sometimes.

Of course, they have loads of money, houses, security etc etc, but is that a privilege? It all looks a bit pointless to me. There's no satisfaction in earning it, and what benefit is to be had from it compared to the average middle class person (who of course is privileged in their own way).

aquashiv Sun 03-Mar-13 21:31:31

Pouffe/Kim 147 You have a very similar view on things are you one and the same?
Plenty of people live rough quite happily
YOu know this really?

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:31:47

I've slept on lots of sofas, why does it make you feel shit about yourself?

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:32:39

I'm not Kim, but well chuffed to find someone who vaguely agrees, no-one ever agrees with me in real life.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:34:23

aquashiv I'm definitely me smile

But I'm not talking about sleeping rough - although I've very nearly been there.

I'm talking about freedom.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:36:31

Have you pouffe? Because you didn't have anywhere else to go? For months at a time?

I think you'd be challenged to find a situation more likely to damage your self esteem. It's a massive problem for homeless people.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:37:14

I think the point being that if you find yourself homeless, but have your wits about you, you don't stay there long, and find shelter of some kind quickly. The main people who are on the streets long term have mental health problems, and substance abuse issues. They are probably very unhappy and vulnerable.

Personally, if I fell on hard times, I would go to a rural area and probably contact the church or somewhere to help me out. I would have no need to be knocking about with drunks and hookers.

Nobody's holding a gun to their heads. If their lives are so shit they can try their luck in the outside world. They're not exactly climbing over each other to escape Balmoral are they?

Complete nonsense. Do you really think that if Harry said "bugger this, I want to work in the city and live in a nice house in Surbiton" do you think for a split second that he'd be able to do that and live a normal life? Like hell would he. He'd be hounded just as much as he is now.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:38:27

Sigh. I don't think you really understand any of the problems surrounding homelessness, do you? So it's a bit rich saying you'd prefer to be on the streets.

amillionyears Sun 03-Mar-13 21:39:17

There used to be a lot of tramps about, or men of the road.
They used to enjoy that way of life, the "freedom" of it.
They used to enjoy not having to abide by many of societies rules.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:39:19

I was sleeping on a floor at 42 weeks pregnant, through no fault of my own, why the hell would I feel bad about that?

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:39:41

Gwendoline, they could easily go to a country where people don't give a shite about the royals.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:41:12

Whether or not it affected your self esteem, it does that of many homeless people.

It's got nothing to do with your OP, however.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:43:14

The problems SURROUNDING homelessness are alcoholism, drug abuse, learning disability, people feeling trapped into prostitution etc. i don't have any of those problems so would be purely homeless.

I have no idea whether I would cope with those problems because I've never experienced them. I have been homeless though.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:43:18

Apparently it was the impact of photography, the "media" and the railway that helped Queen Victoria become more popular. Her family weren't that popular until they could be seen.

And it's the media and how the media portray them that inform our views of them. And the mainstream media is very sycophantic - whereas foreign media know that people are interested in their celebrity status.

And that's what affects their freedom to live a life like most of us do.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:43:52

Maybe it does, I'd like to know why though.

amillionyears Sun 03-Mar-13 21:44:10

I think she meant privileged as in "sought after" , not privileged as in getting the best of everything. iyswim.
could be wrong though.

expatinscotland Sun 03-Mar-13 21:44:19

If they are not privileged, what is your definition of it?

FGS, millions of children in this world starving, in war-torn countries, in slavery and you pity royalty?

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:44:59

How do you know the homeless people you've met didn't have low self esteem to begin with?

TiggyD Sun 03-Mar-13 21:46:11

"they could easily go to a country where people don't give a shite about the royals. "

And they would be followed. Every day. And photographed. It's why I would like to get rid of the monarchy. It's cruel. Everybody else in the public eye has chosen that way of life. The royals haven't.

Lots of privilege, lots of problems.

pouffepants Sun 03-Mar-13 21:46:33

Expat under your definition, we are all privileged. Which is true.

I'd like to know why people think the royals are more privileged than the rest of us who have food and safety.

expatinscotland Sun 03-Mar-13 21:46:42

They have lack of freedom? Get real!

Badvoc Sun 03-Mar-13 21:47:36

Things have changed,
I remember Charles and Diana's wedding and all the engagement hoo ha.
Every girl wanted to be a princess.
Very different when will and Kate announced their engagement.
Lots of "rather you than me love" comments.
Yes, they are incredibly privileged. They own most if the uk fgs. The queen is one if the richest people in the world.
But I wouldn't swap my life for hers.

lydiamama Sun 03-Mar-13 21:49:02

I quite agree with you OP, my dream is to be rich, just filthy rich, like a million pounds at least, but completely unknown.
On the other hand, they get to travel everywhere, know very important people, artists, politician, scientist, they get to visit children in hospital, and bring a smile to them, initiate and direct charity campaigns; I think they get a very good chance of feeling really valuable in society, as they are everyday involved in these events, and some of them are really wonderful. Now I would like to go an open a brand new hospital, or take flowers to ill people and see happy faces around me for that!!

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:49:43

Exactly Tiggy - when we are born, our lives our ours to choose what to do. We can muck them up or make the most of them.
But we have the freedom. They have the privilege that comes with being Royal which is an incredible advantage to most people.

But Kate and William's baby has a pre-destined life - and a sense of duty will be ingrained into them from when they are young.

Who want's a pre-destined life?

expatinscotland Sun 03-Mar-13 21:50:05

'I'd like to know why people think the royals are more privileged than the rest of us who have food and safety.'

Is it possible to be so obtuse that that is not patently obvious? hmm

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:50:12

<wants not want's, I'm a teacher FFS>

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:51:43

Ask yourself what you have done in your life that a Royal could not have done.

That's the freedom you have.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:54:05

Lack of freedom, what bollocks.

Not being able to get the bus to town because you don't have the fair is lack of freedom.

I'm not arguing about homelessness with you. It has nothing to do with the issue and I think it is incredibly offensive to say you'd rather be on the streets than a royal.

MechanicalTheatre Sun 03-Mar-13 21:55:22

The fare, obv.

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 21:55:58

When Diana died the Daily Mail said that it would never use a Paparazzi photo again.

The ENTIRE right hand side of their website comprises long lens photos
I just wish that the "targets" would snap back and point out how shitty it is to paddle with your kids while 200 gigantic lenses watch.

Yeah, the royals holiday a lot. They always did but now shits with phones on mustique or in Switzerland show it.
If nobody turns up to their events, they will stop coming, the choice is in your hands not theirs.

WTF are the press printing pics of them off duty. Would you like it
if you work for the council or the army or the DSS ...
your wages are paid by the state, you are no better or worse than them
shall I put pictures of YOU online ?

landofsoapandglory Sun 03-Mar-13 21:57:01

They most definitely are privileged.

I like the Queen and wouldn't want her live, but you can not deny that they are priviledged.

Kate winds me up, though. She is meant to be too il to do many engagements, but has just come back from Mystique and is now in the Alps! I wish DH's military career was suitably adapted so he could have as much time off as William!

expatinscotland Sun 03-Mar-13 21:58:14

I couldn't care less about their lack of privacy and people taking photos of them. We have serious economic troubles and these people bleat on about their fucking privacy.

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 21:59:33

kate winds me up
when did you last meet her for lunch?
or are you basing you views on the press rather than any reliably true information about her?

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:59:53

mechanical Who are saying is being offensive?

Talkinpeace Sun 03-Mar-13 22:01:28

but do you like the fact the the fees paid overseas photographers are paid outside the UK tax system

expatinscotland Sun 03-Mar-13 22:03:28

And so? I'm sure it's nowhere near to what corporations escape paying. No one holds a gun to their head and forces them to be royals. People take photos of them. Diddums.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:04:48

I haven't got much money. I struggle with the bus fare sometimes. I'd love their money and opportunities. But I've been able to travel the world by myself, go out today with a bunch of friends and strangers and to live my life how I want to.

That's the freedom I'm talking about.

landofsoapandglory Sun 03-Mar-13 22:13:50

Talkinpeace, I don't have to meet her for lunch to notice that she does not seem to be doing much work ATM, but she is able to pop off on her holidays still!

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:15:58

You also have the freedom to say what you really think. Well - about most subjects.

TheOriginalSteamingNit Sun 03-Mar-13 22:18:43

Of course they are privileged. It may not be a privilege I would choose for myself, but it's daft to say they aren't.

pouffe - sorry, sleeping on sofas is not being homeless.

I am disgusted you would say that - I assumed you knew what you were talking about, but you are just being rude about people who're homeless - why? What could you gain from saying this stuff? confused

Why not have a bit of consideration and think 'there but for the grace of God'.

I'm not even going to try to answer your point about mental health/substance abuse.

I hope you never find yourself homeless.

I remember when I was a teenager, I came down a street just after a lorry had backed over a homeless man. I will never forget that. Do you think your lack of mental health/substance abuse issues would have protected you from that? Or from freezing to death when the temperature drops too low?

What a stupid and crass set of posts.

TheOriginalSteamingNit Sun 03-Mar-13 22:29:41

Nice to see Rowan Marlow on the thread, too grin

I wouldn't choose to be a royal, but to be fair they are unbelievably rich and do nothing more arduous than the vast majority of people do every day for fuck all money. So excuse me for not giving much of a fuck.

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

LRD, sleeping on sofas is homeless.

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 22:37:37

Oh yes, I totally agree with you.

Thanks. Sorry for writing it wrongly.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 00:18:11

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

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.

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.

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


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 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.

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

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

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

YY to expat and seeker.

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

They have plenty of privacy.

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/'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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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