Advanced search

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I don't think there should be a royal family, it's an outdated concept to have hereditary holders of power.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

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

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: