Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that the royals aren't priveleged

135 replies

pouffepants · 03/03/2013 20:05

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I don't think there should be a royal family, it's an outdated concept to have hereditary holders of power.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

OP posts:
Talkinpeace · 03/03/2013 21:59

landofsoap
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 · 03/03/2013 21:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Talkinpeace · 03/03/2013 22:01

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

expatinscotland · 03/03/2013 22:03

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 · 03/03/2013 22:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

landofsoapandglory · 03/03/2013 22:13

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 · 03/03/2013 22:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 03/03/2013 22:18

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.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/03/2013 22:22

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 · 03/03/2013 22:29

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 · 03/03/2013 22:33

LRD, sleeping on sofas is homeless.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/03/2013 22:36

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 · 03/03/2013 22:37

Oh yes, I totally agree with you.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/03/2013 22:39

Thanks. Sorry for writing it wrongly.

Original poster
pouffepants · 03/03/2013 22:55

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.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/03/2013 22:56

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?

Original poster
pouffepants · 03/03/2013 23:03

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.

OP posts:
thezebrawearspurple · 03/03/2013 23:18

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.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 03/03/2013 23:21

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 · 04/03/2013 00:01

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 · 04/03/2013 00:07

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 · 04/03/2013 00:10

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 · 04/03/2013 00:18

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

Original poster
pouffepants · 04/03/2013 07:41

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.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 04/03/2013 08:45

'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.