The Disadvantages of Being Royal

[nascarlucy]

Yet at the same time you have people out there who would want to be royal, who seek royals out because they want attention or want the status associated with being royal. Or they hope to get personal gain from royals. This is one thing that royals are constantly on guard for and they never know what person might try this (this can be individuals who are commoners or those royals who are social climbers or want a higher status).

[Thumbahlina]

Originally Posted by Eva-Britt

I don't know if someone already started a thread like this one but I think it's quite sad to become a royal just because you love someone of the royal family! Take for example princess Mary, she felt badly in love with prince Frederik, she left her country, her job, her friends in Australia and now she has to become a queen one day..I know she is happy, they are having a cute baby but on the other hand it's sad. You know, her life will never be the same as before.

Personally, I have empathy even though I have no idea what the royals feel like. I was social, had friends, had to give everything I knew as a way of life up to be and stay married, (it's for the better and I am happy), sure I make brief acquaintances, but at my age you only have what you have made out of life. Same thing with the royals but their jobs have an impact, I couldn't want or fathom to make like they do. If I had to add that kind of impact after caring for in laws that took me over a decade to get used to, tending to my own life, lives of others in the family, putting up with all the asinine bullheadedness lol, having a nice honestly polite fun time in public then be a royal, the exhaustion would wither me away. I get so emotionally involved in all I do, being a royal would exasperate my wits and drain me of all remaining sanity, lol. Sad? I would be incapacitated if I was a royal without the charity work. So if that in any way is relating, lol, there you have it. I love my life though too and all I do, even though the weight, impact and merit of it could never be judged, it's nice like that and I wouldn't want it any other way. So while I can understand or empathize or give sympathy about the royals as everyday people I also respect the role they have and am glad they have them.

[nascarlucy]

Most people in the US couldn't tell you anything about Royals outside of Britain and Monaco. I don't know a lot about royalty but I probably know more that you're average American citizen and certainly much more that you're average person in Florida.

In this life, you don't chose you're family or who you are born to. Being born royal is a privileged life compared to you're average person. As much as many royals hate being the center of attention or bothered by the press (this I don't blame them), few of them would want to give up their lifestyle which includes being pampered all the time, never having to cook, clean or do housework (unless they chose to), going to interesting and nice places,having opportunities to do things that the average person dreams about, and having the best medical care money can buy, few royals would give this up to have a more private life.

There are some people that would love to have their lifestyle (of course I could hear some say, well they don't know what the lifestyle is like which is probably true). I really don't think it's sad being royal as you're life is what you make it.

Marrying into royalty is a whole different thing. Some things are the way they are and you either accept it or you're don't. Some things you can't change especially if the royal household is very rigid or resistance to change and if you try to change things, you would get nowhere. If you can't accept certain things, then you probably shouldn't marry into royalty. What you can or can't accept or live with depends on one's personality, character and temperament.

[Osipi]

This is one area where I really have to admire Camilla. When one is young, in love and ready to take on the world or a life in the public eye as a member of a royal family, I think it would be much easier to adapt and grow into the role. It must have been a far greater challenge for Camilla to marry into the British Royal Family and royal life at a time in life when most women are looking forward to their retirement years and knowing that perhaps the busiest years of her life are yet to come.

I don't think I could take the structure of royal life. Its not only having a day planner but an hour to hour plan sometimes with no option of deciding to stretch out and watch reruns on TV or even taking a power nap because of a headache. Being royal means putting on the royal game face each and every time you step outside of your private residence whereas I can't remember the last time I put on any kind of face to go anywhere. They're constantly noticed and I pretty much can walk through Walmart and no one would remember me being there. It might look like they've got everything and people waiting on them hand and foot but what they don't have is the free time to do that stuff for themselves. No wonder Philip enjoys BBQ'ing so much and retreating to Balmoral away from the masses is so looked forward to every year.

With every lifestyle though there is the down side to it. As its often said, the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence and it works both ways.

[Olyashka]

As a person who wants to marry an unknown prince if ever we would have the chance to meet & fly in love (out of my sudden "impulse" that I want to get to know him better - in a "looking for a husband" perspective, not "press" people's perspective), I only thought of his being royal as a way for me to know him. He is not famous, at least, because he is royal, I learned about him. (However yeh, even though we breathe the same air, see the same skies and step on the same earth, there is a 0.000001% possibility we'll meet).

Moving on to the real topic, I agree with what most people said here. It's confining to be a royal, and that confinement makes one sad (or depressed). You don't know why people approach you. We commoners find it hard to trust others, how much more do they?
Royal women are even more fortunate today. Had they lived before, they would be preyed on for arranged marriages - with young, same age or older royals. (Note older). Royal men never had that problem (or was there ever a royal man pushed to marry an older royal woman?)
It's also saddening that people would have much expectation of you in many or every aspect of your life. You will have to give up a passion that will hinder you from doing more of your royal duties... and if you choose to pursue such passion, you will get countless criticism from family and strangers. Stressful to think about and saddening.

However, lots of royals since time immemorial have broken rules to show their real selves, to be who they want to be even once in their lifetime, to make a choice for their personal life without heeding others. Look at Elizabeth II, I think the biggest rule she broke on being a royal is her choice of husband. IIRC, lots didn't praise her choice of Philip.

[nascarlucy]

I suppose if royals could pick and choose what their public schedule was, they would be happier. Of course that would probably backfire as they would be seen as liking or preferring one thing over another. I imagine some of the things that they have to do are boring to them or they have no interest in it.

If they have a bad day or wake up on the wrong side of the bed or don't feel like going out, they can't cancel an appointment unless they are really sick.

Trusting people would be difficult because everyone seems to want something from you. Of course royals aren't the only people who have to be careful. Celebs, sport stars or others who are wealthy have to be on the lookout for those using them for their money, power and status.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

Yet at the same time you have people out there who would want to be royal, who seek royals out because they want attention or want the status associated with being royal. Or they hope to get personal gain from royals. This is one thing that royals are constantly on guard for and they never know what person might try this (this can be individuals who are commoners or those royals who are social climbers or want a higher status).

I think royals have an antenna for that. Besides that, there are also very, very royalborn persons who look for rich partners (Prince Pavlos of Greece with Ms Marie-Chantal Miller, Prince Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme with Princess Irene of the Netherlands, etc.). Princess Maria Carolina de Bourbon de Parme (cousin of King Willem-Alexander) married Alexander Brenninkmeijer, scion of the wealthiest family of the Netherlands.

When you look at Mette-Marit of Norway: an unwed mother with no well-paid job. Or Daniel of Sweden: a fitness gym instructor/owner. Or Catherine Middleton: no idea what she can put on her c.v. None of these partners fall in the category of awesomely rich partners which bring something extra.

So maybe it is reverse: when money is important, it are the royals looking for partners with big money. Think about Downton Abbey: the Earl once married an American, not only for her lovely looks but also because her $$$$ guaranteeed a continuation of the expensive lifestyle...

[ashelen]

Sad, are you kidding me?
They have a life of privilege, and power! they lift a finger and everything is handed to them! and If they want not to be seen by the public they manage that too! Even the traffic can be stop for them or like CP Frederick cross the bridge when nobody else could! They don't have to worry about their kids when they are teenagers and they start to be independents, they always have bodyguards for them. They will never take s* from anybody. They are always in control.
Sad is when you have kids starving all over the world, when a father loose his job and doesn't know how to pay his bill next month, sad is when some kid have talent for something and the parents can not afford to pay for it, sad is one has to keep the head down and put up with an abusive boss and not to reveal because you need that job to pay for your bills, sad is when a child get kidnap, rape, etc... and I can go on and on.......


Their life is not sad. I know through the years some they couldn't produce an heir and this is sad, but in today era with all the treatments of IVF they do not even have to worry how much it cost! they can have 10 of them if they need too! Not to mention they get the best doctors, the best treatments the best medicine for them......


and I agree with PRincess Olga 400% it is so true what she said:"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. "

[Olyashka]

Maybe few or several (or many) royals have realised those privileges commoners cannot have are things they can thank God for that He made them born royal/married to a royal. Not a cause for sadness at all.

[Winnie]

Sad, I think it depends entirely on the individual. Some will think it is a blessing as they are privileged to help make a small part of the world better in some way. Another could use this position for a bizarre life style which would be hidden from public. Another could have the turgid personality of a pathetic user and look down privately on others. Plus yet another could feel their life is a sacrifice to country.


The problem for me would be that it was something I did not personally choose. My life's work would be already designed for me. But then I would have been raised quite differently so maybe that synopsis would not even exist. But sad, no, that would just be a cop-out.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by ashelen

Sad, are you kidding me?
They have a life of privilege, and power! they lift a finger and everything is handed to them! [...]

There are plenty of royals whom do not have all these privilèges. Yes, when you are the King of the Netherlands or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, but this is often connected with their position as head of state. Look at a Paris Hilton: one raised eyebrow is enough to get things done. Look at a Bill Clinton: just show a nice face at a congress, seminar, exhibition, and hoppa! fresh new millions are added to the bulky bank account...

Look to my very own republican president. He has opportunities and privilèges a King of Spain would probably be jealous about. Everyone knows he resides in the Palais de l'Élysée. He also has the use of the Hôtel de Marigny, to accomodate his guests. It is there where President Hollande "animated" Valérie Trierweiller. The President also has the Palais de l'Alma (close to the tunnel where Diana, Princess of Wales had her fatal accident). President Mitterrand housed his maîtresse Anne Pingeot and their illegitimate daughteer Mazarine in this palace.

Then there is a hunting pavillion on the royal domain of Versailles, the Pavillion de la Lanterne. It used to be a retreat for the Prime Minister but President Sarkozy was so in love with it, that he housed his girlfriend and later spouse, Carla Bruni, in there. A swimming pool and a tennis court were added to their pleasure. Because President Sarkozy 'picked' this pavillion in Versailles from the Prime Minister, he swapped it with one of the other residences traditonally at his disposal: the Domaine de Souzy-la-Briche, some 40 km south-west of Paris, was given in use to the Prime Minister and his family.

When the President wants total seclusion and great sun and deep blue see, he goes to his private island Fort de Brégançon near Bormes-les-Mimosas, close to the city of Toulon. Then there is the Domaine de Marly-le-Roi bordering the Forêt de Marly and the immense gardens of Versailles. Because Versailles is such a tourist hot-spot, the President decided to add the domain of Marly to that of Versailles. Sometimes the Petit-Trianon there is used but so far President Sarkozy and President Hollande have preferred the beforementioned hunting lodge.

So you see, privileges are not for royals only... On the contrary, I would say... Look at the likes of FIFA-boss Mr Sepp Platter, or the daughter of Vladimir Putin (living in the Netherlands), etc. One raised eyebrow and everything is done to the wishes of monsieur or madame...

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Hmm, there are many people who have more priveliges than the royals, millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, Mariah Carey... But it could be argued that they all earned them from hard work and success.
I don't know how other royaks live, but for the BRF I would lose it on the press at least once a week with the ridiculousness they pull. BUT that appears to be the only major negative to their status....unless you are Prince Charles and you want to change the world and influence the government but your official role is as a figurehead.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Hmm, there are many people who have more priveliges than the royals, millionaires, billionaires, CEOs, Mariah Carey... But it could be argued that they all earned them from hard work and success.
I don't know how other royaks live, but for the BRF I would lose it on the press at least once a week with the ridiculousness they pull. BUT that appears to be the only major negative to their status....unless you are Prince Charles and you want to change the world and influence the government but your official role is as a figurehead.

I don't think Princess Beatrice enjoys that many privilèges apart from being mercilessly hunted by the press. I don't think all staff immediately bow 45 degrees when Viscountess Linley enters the bank office. I don't think staff at Harrod's run harder for Katherine, Duchess of Kent than for Mrs Natalia Potanina (spouse of Russia's richest oligarch). The privilèges really are limited. And all these rich men and women have spouses, children, relatives, friends, all enjoying wealth and privileges -also because they are born in that milieu- and have nothing to do with personal merits. When your last name is Kennedy, Roosevelt, Astor, Lowell, Cabot, DuPont, Vanderbilt or Rockefeller, doors will swing open as well. And why? Because once an ancestor was a president, founded a company, belongs to gentry or patriciate or even sailed with the Mayflower? Exactly the same as with royals. It is inherent with the name.

[Mbruno]

I don't think being a royal is sad at all. True, you give up some of your privacy, but the perks of the job more than compensate for that.

In the past, royals, especially kings and crown princes, actually had the responsibility to rule the country, go to war, etc. etc. That was probably overwhelming, especially for some not so talented monarchs whose decisions could basically ruin their country. Nowadays, that is no longer the case and, although kings and princes still play a certain role in foreign relations (as ceremonial representatives of their respective countries), most of what they actually do is waving to the crowd, cutting ribbons, giving out medals and trying to look like they care about their people and any hardship they might be going through. They also, in most European countries, have to formally sign lots of the state papers, but those papers are always co-signed by a minister (i.e a politician) that takes legal responsibility for everything that is written in there. I am not trying to say it's easy, but it doesn't look like a particularly hard job to me.

[Isabella]

I don't know that I'd call being a royal "sad," but I think the privileges of being a royal are often quite balanced out by some of the negative aspects of royal life. And, of course, it varies depending on the person in question. However, in general, I would refer to the old "money can't buy happiness" cliché, because I don't feel that royals, on average, necessarily have happier lives than most people (though, of course, that's not to say they don't have easier lives in a lot of ways).

Money and privilege can be great things to have, but whereas I think money can be very freeing (from certain responsibilities and concerns) for non-royals, many royals have a lot of restrictions placed on them, especially for those close to the throne. Although there's been more flexibility in recent years, royals have often been limited in where they live, where and what they study, what kind of job they have, whom them marry, etc. And if they buck any traditions along the way, you have to be prepared for backlash. I do realize royals have some degree of choice in all those things, but for many, they can't just pack up and move wherever they want (though, yes, living in a palace is nice compensation), they can't just study and pursue any career they want, and many have to seek permission in terms of who they marry. In that sense, I know I certainly have more freedom than they do, even though I certainly don't have anything approaching the wealth and privilege that comes with being a royal. And that's not even mentioning the media scrutiny they have to put up with, which I think might be more difficult to deal with than an outsider could possibly understand.


If it's a question of whether or not it's "sad' being a royal, I think there are times when it is and there are certainly some royals who I think have not had particularly happy lives. However, I think that more than anything, it's probably just plain frustrating to be a royal at times. To be an adult and not be free to make a lot of your own decisions would be challenging, but being royal does come with a heck of a safety net (outstanding job security and financial security!). I also think it depends on the royal individual in question, based on their temperament, their position, etc.

[Olyashka]

Another disadvantage is if you break a certain royal protocol, your parents might be blamed for it, too, even if it's just you who did the mistake...

Being governed by the royal protocol whenever you're out in public for personal outings is very annoying (-_-)

The new title of this thread is great : )

[nascarlucy]

Unless the breach was severe, the royal would probably be forgiven or an excuse given.

[Thumbahlina]

Originally Posted by royaltywatcher

That's the U.S.!

I'd be surprised if even one percent of our population knew of the existence of any royal family besides the English royal family and of course Monaco (because of Princess Grace). Their privacy is certainly safe here!

Yeah but we miss learning about a lot of those festivities that most of us don't even realize exist over there. It is a whole different culture here in The States, isn't it? The mere thought of English Royals and we think American History remembering how people fled England then the words English Penal Colony ring a bell if our memories of middle school history ring clear. Don't forget about the American Revolution, it took up like an entire grading period, I think. Then we look at modern day, we fight right along side with them. So hearing about Royal news is kind of like letting Americans know world relations with England are going well. Aristocrats are different here, you don't always know they are. Royal's privacy isn't exactly interesting either, neither are they unless they are giving birth, dating or active in politics. I have never heard of a single charity they are affiliated with outside of British news, then again I do not need them anyway. The Royals and their news just don't pertain to an everyday American. It makes them, their history and what they do interesting.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Thumbahlina

Yeah but we miss learning about a lot of those festivities that most of us don't even realize exist over there. It is a whole different culture here in The States, isn't it? The mere thought of English Royals and we think American History remembering how people fled England then the words English Penal Colony ring a bell if our memories of middle school history ring clear. Don't forget about the American Revolution, it took up like an entire grading period, I think. Then we look at modern day, we fight right along side with them. So hearing about Royal news is kind of like letting Americans know world relations with England are going well. Aristocrats are different here, you don't always know they are. Royal's privacy isn't exactly interesting either, neither are they unless they are giving birth, dating or active in politics. I have never heard of a single charity they are affiliated with outside of British news, then again I do not need them anyway. The Royals and their news just don't pertain to an everyday American. It makes them, their history and what they do interesting.

CNN here does pick up on things that the British royals are involved with here in the States such as United for Wildlife and meeting with Obama and Harry attending the Warrior Games and meeting top level officials for HALO and such. My hubby cackles with glee when he finds CNN talking about something the British royals are in the news for and gets to tell me before I read it here.

Although the British royals take pains to keep away from the politics of the day, one of their biggest disadvantages is that no matter where they go or what they do and say, they are always looked at as being ambassadors of the United Kingdom and they know that what they wear, what they say and who they talk to and every minute action is scrutinized and analyzed to the nth degree. They have to be professional at putting on their "game face" and carrying on even though they might want to stay home with a cold drink and a bowl of popcorn and pain relievers to get rid of a nasty headache.

To a lot of us, the lifestyle looks so very glamorous and privileged with the mansions and the jewels and the cars and fine dining and what have you but what we don't see is the other side of the coin that's hiding under a rock in the royal fishbowl.

[CyrilVladisla]

It is sad to be a royal gentleman. Whether he is a Prince or a King, how can he blend in the crowd? If his shirt has a wrinkle, someone notices it. His picture can be taken in a flash. When is he free of duties?