The Disadvantages of Being Royal

[Eliza]

Personally i don't think it's sad to be a royal - perhaps more restricted but certainly not sad.

It's a totally different life and one that we're probably not be able to fully understand until we're living it.

But I think being a royal is a privilage prosition and one can do so much to bring attention to causes happening around the world, lend weight to help the less fortunate

It's all a matter of how you want to look at situation.

 

[Beatrice]

Sometimes it's annoying with all these paparazzis hunting them but i can't say sad.

 

[princess olga]

I get your point.
BUT how is your point on being a royal? are you saying you want to be a royal, because of what you said above... or are you saying you would not want to be one?
Well and don't compare 'sad' with really absolute heartbreaking 'sad'. You have different kinds of 'sad'.
I don't think I would be a royal, although you made a point on what I agree... You have it al, being a royal.. I might want that..
But no, you loose all your freedom, and everyone follows every step of you, and you have to be always nice and smile, and pretent like you are always interested in everyone and every occasion, from flowers to fashion, from ill children to horses.
Well I would say no. I want to be in control of my life, of my freedom, of my privacy. And I think it is kind of 'sad' loosing all of your privacy, freedom, control, etc.

Fair question! Would I want to be a royal...Well, not if I look at for example the life of a monarch, such as Beatrix. That must be incredibly hard. But then, if you look at for example a lesser royal like Swedish princess Madeleine, that's a life that is a bit better..no responsibilities (a stint at Unicef here or there, but no one knows what the girl really did there let alone accomplished) and you get to go on vacation an tan yourself orange!

Still, I'd hate to live in a fish-bowl, as they say. I'm with you on that losing privacy can't be easy.

 

[donnaK]

A person who is sad and lonely as a royal likely to be a sad and lonely person else where too. Royalty is an extremely privileged position with lots of perks, off course it requires a certain degree of sacrifice. But if any royals who don't wish to be royals anymore can walk away, so far we haven't seen any except King Edward of GB. Thus I think the perks still out weights the so called sacrifice.

 

[AquaMarine]

A person who is sad and lonely as a royal likely to be a sad and lonely person else where too. Royalty is an extremely privileged position with lots of perks, off course it requires a certain degree of sacrifice. But if any royals who don't wish to be royals anymore can walk away, so far we haven't seen any except King Edward of GB. Thus I think the perks still out weights the so called sacrifice.

I agree - a sad and lonely person will be sad and lonely everywhere.
A normal person in the right mind is able to see in any changes sooner positives signs than negative. Royal being or becoming allow to fill the life not only with luxury, but, first of all, with many possibilities to live a full life - bright, meaningful and useful.

 

[olga7777]

Fair question! Would I want to be a royal...Well, not if I look at for example the life of a monarch, such as Beatrix. That must be incredibly hard. But then, if you look at for example a lesser royal like Swedish princess Madeleine, that's a life that is a bit better..no responsibilities (a stint at Unicef here or there, but no one knows what the girl really did there let alone accomplished) and you get to go on vacation an tan yourself orange!

Still, I'd hate to live in a fish-bowl, as they say. I'm with you on that losing privacy can't be easy.

I mostly agree with you in that it is completely different the life of a Royal that is going to be a King or a Queen and someone like Madelenie that is going to have plenty of opportunities and not by far the same responsabilities.

I don't agree with the two previous messages that if you are sad and lonely you are going to be sad and lonely everywhere. Life and circunstances are sometimes going to make you sad and lonely and that has to do more with circunstances of life than with your personality.

 

[FarahJoy]

I think that Royals have it very easy. When you think about the "pressure" that they are under and compare it to someone in their age group, give me a break.

If you have a year old baby and you are both working, you have a very tight schedule. To get the baby to the sitters, then on to work, back to get the baby, etc. You go home at night and do laundry, clean house, cook supper, etc.

Now consider a Princess. She has a nanny for her child, she does not cook or clean, she probably doesn't even make her bed! She works maybe one week a month (if you add up her duties) and the rest, who knows what she is doing?

The only person who really had a reason to gripe was Diana. Her fame was so huge that in the end, I think we can say it destroyed her. Her fame was something that we will likely never see again. I only brought her up to illustrate my point.

Speaking of Fame and Diana, I was disgusted when I bought the new People magazine about the Royals. It barely covered the new Princesses (which I was hoping to find pictures of) and was pretty much devoted to Britian and Monaco. So these new Princesses should not be concerned about losing their privacy worldwide. Its amazing that a dead Princess is still more popular than them!

So I said all that to say that I think they have nothing to complain about and if they do, they should be forced to leave the Palace for a week and live like the real world.

By the way, Thomas, I loved your post. It was hilarious and gave me a good laugh. Thanks so much for it!

I met a queen once and my vision of Royal's daily life has changed since then and is more realistic. Of course, Royals have huge financial and material privileges. But attending cocktails protected by dozens of bodyguards on a yacht can be part of a Royal's obligations and can revele being, in fact... deadly boring

Seing the pleasure of this queen taking care of a little girl and of my own relatives, chatting with us but also sitting all alone on her bench sometimes looking sad and "away", changed my vision of Royalty. This wonderful woman seemed to me like a "bird in a golden cage". How few freedom you have when you are a Royal, how careful you must be in every word you say, how lonely you are, in fact, not being able to make friends freely (who can you trust ?)... How difficult to be exposed to critics every day. And so many other situations we do not even think of.

Well this woman has worn the most beautiful jewels you can imagine, she has had the greatest priviledges, and she seemed just so happy having a fresh conversation with "commoners" and specially enjoying kids spontaneity and not wearing jewels. See... hapiness is not always in material things and I think we often have a very wrong vision of Royalty.

So yes, I would agree : it is quite sad to be a Royal. It means so many moral responsibilities and altruism that I am happy Royals can enjoy some "material compensations"

 

[Kevin_of_Sussex]

I think a lot of how sad or happy a member of the royal family feels about one's position depends on attitude towards the "job".

It reminds me of the tale of two workmen digging a hole in the road. One was alway moaning about how boring it was, how cold it was, people looking down at him. The other was always cheerful, he loved the exercise and the outdoors, enjoyed the banter with colleagues, of course digging the hole appears to be the same but the scenery always different.

This could apply to any job, even being a king or queen. There would be the moaner, fed up with being dressed up "like a tailor's dummy", annoyed at the photographers, and having a general "not another bl**dy tree to plant today" attitude. On the other hand there could be the cheerful royal who enjoy travelling, meeting high society, and talking with ordinary people from all walks of life on a walkabout not knowing whom one would meet and what they would say.

Of course there are pros and cons of being royal (I confess that I am a mere commoner), but I would admire the privilege and luxury of such a position. All I can say I hope that it is the kind of lifestyle that brings "job satisfaction".

 

[dbarn67]

Well I dont know about sad but I remember a reporter who covered the BRF for year said that it is not all that much fun being a royal. "They are frustrated people" he said. And I think he's probably right, particularly for the British Royal Family, you every move since birth is monitored and scrutinized and you are criticized quite roundly for every move you make good or bad.
None of them can really do things that they'd love. Look at Prince Harry and his desire to have a military career. He so wanted to be like other soldiers and experience the front like his peers. To have is dream altered for what are very real security reasons, is unfortunate.

 

[Turkish Delight]

A person who is sad and lonely as a royal likely to be a sad and lonely person else where too. Royalty is an extremely privileged position with lots of perks, off course it requires a certain degree of sacrifice. But if any royals who don't wish to be royals anymore can walk away, so far we haven't seen any except King Edward of GB. Thus I think the perks still out weights the so called sacrifice.

I agree with you.

 

[lyndaW]

I agree with what all of you have written, "but" life is what you make it, it all comes down to each person

 

[bbb]

I think a lot of how sad or happy a member of the royal family feels about one's position depends on attitude towards the "job".

It reminds me of the tale of two workmen digging a hole in the road. One was alway moaning about how boring it was, how cold it was, people looking down at him. The other was always cheerful, he loved the exercise and the outdoors, enjoyed the banter with colleagues, of course digging the hole appears to be the same but the scenery always different.

This could apply to any job, even being a king or queen. There would be the moaner, fed up with being dressed up "like a tailor's dummy", annoyed at the photographers, and having a general "not another bl**dy tree to plant today" attitude. On the other hand there could be the cheerful royal who enjoy travelling, meeting high society, and talking with ordinary people from all walks of life on a walkabout not knowing whom one would meet and what they would say.

Of course there are pros and cons of being royal (I confess that I am a mere commoner), but I would admire the privilege and luxury of such a position. All I can say I hope that it is the kind of lifestyle that brings "job satisfaction".

thanks for your post i agree completely. royal or not, you have the same emotions and feelings as everyone else. grief is grief, but to be sad just because i was a royal- NO. it would have sad aspects, i'm sure they see things they have no power to change and feel frustrated. mary mentions in the interview how she must appear upbeat to children with cancer and how hard it is at times to "put on a happy face" - anyone with a tender heart must feel emotions at such times. attitude, personality and emotional maturity must play a big part in how they view their "jobs" and carry them out. i think most royals are doing the best they can and are doing good for their country and the world.

 

[iowabelle]

In general (a notable exception being Princess Masako) royals with money have it better than the rest of us. And "happiness" is an individual concept. For me it would be easier to achieve happiness with some money (having a nice home - and being able to afford children/get proper medical care, money to travel and invest in things I'm interested in like kiva.org). I wouldn't mind doing public appearances or learning about the history of my country (I've done that anyway!).

I think unhappy royals would tend to be unhappy as regular people because they either have a tendency toward depression or they're just whiney people. I can think of a couple... but I won't go there!

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Well said, Kevin, thank you for your response.

Personally speaking, I would find being a royal too restricting. I love my freedom, and that I am able to still do "royal" things such as volunteering to help others as well as other charity work, such as environmental stuff, without the whole world watching my move.

So is it all that bad and/or sad being a royal? Well, like Kevin said, in loose terms, it all depends on ones attitude from the out-set. I would hate it simply because I could not follow/handle the formalities that comes with being a royal of a reigning house. Being told where to go, when, how to behave, etc. People talking about the way I look in the media every single day... you know the non-important superficial things.

Could I handle being a less important minor royal? Perhaps, it seems a tad easier than being a Crown Prince, Crown Princess, King and/or King. Being a Prince, Princess, Queen, or King of a non-reigning house that most of the world seems to have forgotten seems easier as well.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I'd love to be a Royal but I couldn't be doing with all that charity guff. I'd just want to doss about in my private apartment, getting legless and getting indecently involved with the footmen. And then every so often I'd pop a hat on and go to a film premiere and tell everyone how delightful it was. But that'd be pretty much it.

 

[iowabelle]

BeatrixFan, you sound like a throwback to those naughty Hanoverian sons of George III (is it possible that you could be Princess Margaret's love child,instead of that horrible imposter)? Of course, now I'm going to be pilloried by Margaret's admirers.

 

[BeatrixFan]

BeatrixFan, you sound like a throwback to those naughty Hanoverian sons of George III (is it possible that you could be Princess Margaret's love child,instead of that horrible imposter)? Of course, now I'm going to be pilloried by Margaret's admirers.

All 2 of them.

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

I'd love to be a Royal but I couldn't be doing with all that charity guff. I'd just want to doss about in my private apartment, getting legless and getting indecently involved with the footmen. And then every so often I'd pop a hat on and go to a film premiere and tell everyone how delightful it was. But that'd be pretty much it.

Sounds like fun.

As iowabelle noted, you would definitely fit in with the Hanoverian clan. Now, if I were to be born into an aristocratic family, of the past, I would definitely fit right in with either Malborogh or Devonshire peeps ala Sarah Chruchill or Georgiana.

 

[ashelen]

Couldn't agree more. These people have their cake, and eat it, too. I wish I'd be paid to be flying across the globe, hobnobbing with the most glamorous and famous and interesting of people, just because of my meaningless <title>, AND get reimbursed AND get paid a sum that even the President of the United States could only dream about!! These people have it made!!

Sad? If you mean that an inevitable companion of change is always some sort of nostalgia or wistfulness for what was..and for what never will be the same, then, sure. But sadness? Please. Let's not shed crocodile tears over these most privileged of all 6 billion humans walking around the planet today.

To put things in perspective:
Losing a child to illness, a crime or accident? That's sad.
Losing your job despite the fact you did all you could? That's sad.
Getting teased in school because you happen to not be like every other kid? That's sad.
Having difficulties to make ends meet despite the fact you are doing everything you can to make some good happen to you and your family? That's sad.

I mean, please. Just because royals pay PR professionals dearly to make US <believe> they have it so hard, doesn't necessarily make it so. This is one of my ultimate pet peeves with 'royals' today. The only thing these people are is descendants of bullies who won plots of land by, mostly, violence, centuries and centuries ago.

And still today, we are supposed to admire these descendants just because one of their forebears were war lords. Cause that's what royalty is, how it came about, make no mistake here. These people we call 'royals' are, to quote a famous business man, "members of the lucky sperm club.' And that's true, no more and no less. They are the lucky recipients of the worst kind of nepotism rules one can imagine in a modern world.

Sad? Their situation sad? Not for the life of them, it isn't. They are, for the most part--with a few exceptions, but again, only a FEW royals actually put in the effort to actually do something for their constituents-- ultra ultra lucky we mere mortals still bow for them and finance them sitting on their cushy thrones, that's what.

you took my words from my mouth, exactly what I think. I would love to to be living this kind of life, far from the friends and family, what is the problem? they have money to pay anytime airfares to their contry or have their friends and family come over. I choose too, to marry sombody becasue I fell madly in love and I left my country too, but I really miss not to have their fortune and power to get the people that I love to see and to share life with my husband and daughter (like xmas and new year)or to help them in their difficulties!
defenetly it is no sad!

 

[ashelen]

I think that Royals have it very easy. When you think about the "pressure" that they are under and compare it to someone in their age group, give me a break.

If you have a year old baby and you are both working, you have a very tight schedule. To get the baby to the sitters, then on to work, back to get the baby, etc. You go home at night and do laundry, clean house, cook supper, etc.

Now consider a Princess. She has a nanny for her child, she does not cook or clean, she probably doesn't even make her bed! She works maybe one week a month (if you add up her duties) and the rest, who knows what she is doing?

The only person who really had a reason to gripe was Diana. Her fame was so huge that in the end, I think we can say it destroyed her. Her fame was something that we will likely never see again. I only brought her up to illustrate my point.

Speaking of Fame and Diana, I was disgusted when I bought the new People magazine about the Royals. It barely covered the new Princesses (which I was hoping to find pictures of) and was pretty much devoted to Britian and Monaco. So these new Princesses should not be concerned about losing their privacy worldwide. Its amazing that a dead Princess is still more popular than them!

So I said all that to say that I think they have nothing to complain about and if they do, they should be forced to leave the Palace for a week and live like the real world.

By the way, Thomas, I loved your post. It was hilarious and gave me a good laugh. Thanks so much for it!

I couldn't agree more with you, babysitting, cooks, maids, they want to be alone they probably can go to a private island! best school for the kids, and bodyguards, i would love to have a bodyguard for my daughter, specially when you listen today on TV this kids being kidnap and rape and kill. they live a public life, yes, but must be nice to have around you a dresser, a make up artist, a hairdresser, everytime you have to go out to help you to get this great look and while you are getting ready to look faboulosu you have an excellent babbystiter taking care of your kids, have the cook, so you do not have to worry about lunch, cloths wash and iron,house clean etc...etc...etc....

 

[Smilla]

NO. Being a royal is definitely not a "sad fate", comparing to the sad fates that are dealt to people in war zones, famine areas or those born to poor families.
If I were a princess I would think it indecent to moan and complain - it is a privileged position. Sure, it has some drawbacks, but "sad"? Come on. And if they go abroad for a while, nobody recognizes them and they can have a good time without being ogled and having to kiss babies. Every job has it's drawbacks. And being a royal means a lot less drawbacks than most other jobs.

 

[Krisorio]

Having read all your respones, i felt the need to give my opinion as well. Well i agree with the notion that: "life is what you make of it", therefore i would not call the life of a Royal sad perse, but i do think that people undermine the burden of being a Royal. One lives in a golden cage and is scrutinized not only by the people, but also by fellow family members and within their own circles. One has to behave properly at all times, one has to live by the highest moral standards possible, i think this is a hard task, and should not be undermined. The pressure upon Royals can be desastrous for their inner well being. One has to live by the motto "noblesse oblige". Royals have to be "correct" at all times, this is hard work and requires humility, patience and a good temper. Offcourse there are Royals that ignore these rules, but by doing so, they threaten the position of their own family. As a Royal one is never really free to do what one wants, it is not about wanting, it is about serving! I think the worldy things they might have access to is justified completely since it makes their task a bit easier to bare....

Christian

 

[LadyGabrielle]

It is an obligation that they must live with, it is a duty to the people and to God who supposedly ordains them. As I have said before, if they plan to continue their ancient protocols then they have to accept who they are and deal with the scrutiny they will receive not only from the people but by their own family members. If they insist on playing the "game" of royalty then they have to play by the rules. As for being sad? No way, I agree that it is what you make of it, it is the attitude, its how you perceive your life as a royal to be. Does it get tiring and boring at times? I suppose it could but again, its how you handle the problems that go along with the "job". I think most of us agree that being a royal is a privilege and an honor and the position carries many ancient protocols that have been handed down through the generations that can either be adhered to, or ignored. All I know is being a royal should be a rewarding experience where you can use your position in order to try to make a difference in this world for the benefit of the people. To me being sad as a royal is just plain selfish and uncalled for.

 

[Helen88]

I guess it has advantages and disadvantages.
I personally would not want to sit and attend things that I find boring and still would have to pretend how interesting this is for me.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

I can say with uttermost certainty that I would hate being descended from the incumbent

I would be more than happy to do the charity work , but I couldn't stand having the contantly following me, and reading about what a "scandal" I caused, just for having a bit of fun

At least if I wasn't In the first line, things would get smoother, but this would mean the death of my grandparent

I really envy the people like Flora Oglivy, though. They get the honourary place in the line of succession, an interesting heritage, and access to some nice old baubles without the public scrutiny.

What a life

 

[Le Prince Royale]

Yeah, it is quite sad but look on the bright side, things certainly will get interesting. I mean, as the saying goes "No pain, no gain".

 

[nascarlucy]

It really depends. The positive of being a royal is that you're personal needs are always taken care of (you don't have to fix your hair, you nails or toe nails). If you have health issues or weight issues, someone is there to help you when you need them. You get the best of medical care there is. You get to wear beautiful gowns, beautiful clothing, the best of everything. People have to listen to you whether they want to or not (I like this). Very rarely is any common person or politican ever rude or disrespectful towards you. They might be on this blog by what's said but they wouldn't be to your face.

The negatives are that people don't respect your privacy and are always trying to find out who you are dating, who you hang out with and what you are doing. When you go to a public place and are recognized (movie, theatre, restaurant, nightclub), some people gawk at you or some people bother you when they should leave you alone. Sometimes people come onto your property and try to take pictures of you.

You also have to deal with people who use you for financial and social gain. Sometimes other royals have done that to each other. Not exclusively commoners, although the majority of the betrayers are. People who will betray you for a price. If they really cared about you, they wouldn't, even if the relationship ended or even if it ended on a sour note.

 

[MRSJ]

Yes but not after you find a true love to share it with forever (hopefully!)

 

[nascarlucy]

It's wonderful when you have a royal couple who shares a lifetime of love and happiness together. You don't see a lot of them, though, even in modern times. The ones that are are truely blessed. I think this is something that everyone (royal or not) wants.

 

[4Pam]

There are perks to being a royal but IMO there are more negatives. The press are constantly on you to know what's going on in your life & if they don't they make up things to sell papers.

You just want to see them happy and their families too. Just try to wish them the best and that life blesses them with a great support system (staff, families, friends, etc) and spouse.