The Disadvantages of Being Royal

[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.

[Lena]

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.

Well, I´m agreeing. But I must also say, that IMO Mary is maybe not the best example. She seems to be like a fish in water in between all this luxury and attention. She also seems to be a rational thinking person, and spent 1-2 thoughts, before she got into this "adventure"...Yes, adventure...or challenge...somehow one can also see it like this.
The thing, I would have a problem with is...friends. As "ordinary" person you can choose within a huuuge crowd of possible friends. As it seems this crowd gets more and more limited, the higher you get. And as crown princess or hubby of a crown princess, you are nearly the highest ranked person in the state.
As it seems to me it´s for "commoner princesses" also not easy to keep the "old friends" (probably because of jealousy, mistrust and parted worlds with not many shared experiences) and so you have to go with the old friends (usually crown princes don´t make too many new friends) of your hubby (or wife)...not an great idea
In other words...IMO there are nicer ways of being rich, than being a crown princess

[Maxie]

I wouldn't call it sad. It's a choice and that's just what we people do: live by the choices we made. You might call it difficult adapting to a royal live and having to deal with all the attention and stuff, but I wouldn't call it sad. Looking at Mary or Maxima I don't feel the need to burst into tears...

[mirrjam]

well it is sad to give those things up.... it is.
but getting married to the love of your life... That is maybe worth it! And ofcourse being a royal is also a lot of nice things and 'priveleges' (I don't know the correct word..)

[rosana]

Their life´s will never be the same , but will be better, they have privileged lives and everything to be happy, many other things are sad, but i dont think this is the case.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Lena

But I must also say, that IMO Mary is maybe not the best example. She seems to be like a fish in water in between all this luxury and attention.

Or perhaps it's other factors, e.g. the versatility of the type of tasks she's doing now, that makes her look like a fish in water?
But I agree with you - she seems to be extremely adept at what she's doing - and enjoying it on top of that - the best possible combination IMO

[fee]

Sad?
Whom are you kidding?
They lead such a sheltered and privileged live, and most of them do not work half as much as their average citizen does.
One word :
NO

[Birdie]

I agree fee.
That's not sad.
They're living in a luxury world !!!

But on the other hand, no more anonymous...May be they can lose a part of their personality.:unhappy:

[Landgrave]

For someone who marries into a royal family, i guess it's what you make it. Someone marrying say, Princess Victoria of Sweden would have to go into the marriage realising that her position requires traveling frequently, taking part in official events, entertaing visiting dignataries, and that a certain loss of privacy is involved. I think it is no accident that two of the more succesful royal marriages of the 20th century involved an actress from a wealthy family, used to publicity (P. Grace) and a woman who grew up in Washington DC in diplomatic circles (Q. Noor).
Deciding to marry someone includes deciding if you can deal with thier lifestyle; marrying a physician means dealing with the phone ringing in the middle of the night, marrying someone in the military means moving frequently etc.
As far as "a life of luxury", most of the "commoners" who marry into royal families are commoners in the sense that they don't hold a specific title, but do come from wealthy or upper class backgrounds.

[saphills]

I think that Princess Masako's life is sad, feeling the pressure to produce a baby boy for years which caused her depression and the story that we all know.

[Maxie]

Originally Posted by saphills

I think that Princess Masako's life is sad, feeling the pressure to produce a baby boy for years which caused her depression and the story that we all know.

Yes, that's sad indeed...
Next to that I think that being born a royal can be sad too. Just imagine you're a crown prince and a brilliant pianist at the same time, you just have to give up the latter because you have this calling. (Well, you can renounce of course, but how would that look like?). But marrying into a royal family? No, I can't find it sad, it's just a choice, imo.

[charlottestreasures]

Interesting topic.
I have often thought about Mary of Denmark and have come to the conclusion and she either was very much in love with Frederick and in order to be with him the job of Crown Princess came with it, or she desired to have that type of life of luxury and privilege and power. I would think that you would have to be able to get along with the man though!!
Poor Diana, Princess of Wales was too young and it became a nightmare. The thing about the ladies that have married into the Royal Families of Europe lately is that they are older and have had a private life before and a professional life as well. I would think that would make it much easier.
But of course there must be times when they wish they were anonymous again and could just do their own thing and show their feelings. Missing homeland and family would be hard as well. You really would have to be dedicated to making it work.

[Thomas Parkman]

Is it sad ?? being a royal. No sadder or more joyful than anybody else I suppose and the possiblities of having a fabulous time along with total boredom of meeting all those awful political nullities and social duds that inhabit the upper reaches of society. Then there is the adoration of the cheering masses.

But just think you could bedeck yourself with all that jewelry or all those wonderful orders. Have all those palaces and vacation spots. Go all over the place, indulge your interests to the maximum and everybody would think how brilliant you are. Just think,

His Most Excellent Majesty, Thomas III was photoghaped yesterday in a state of great excitement at the announcement of his discovery of the tomb of Pharoh Akenhaten, the revolutionary monotheist Pharoh of ancient Egypt. In addition to his being one of the worldls most preeminent archeologists and historians, his mastery of the intricies of constitutional government have made him one of the most influential and respected world statesmen. It is seriously considered that he may well be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Noted for his mastery of jewelry (having the worlds largest collection of crown jewels-he gave the Queen a complete parure at the birth of each of their six children) of Chinese porcelains, music, architecture and gardening (having designed 5 or the 19 royal residences with their magnificent gardens and art collections) and absolute adoration of chocolate (being the founder and life President of Chocoholics Anonymous -an international society for world peace and the consumption of chocolate with 250,000,000 members), his colorful and eccentric personality, famous wit and good humor are as continual delight to his subjects as his rigor and mastery of public affairs are a sourch of dread to hiis ministers. The Prime Minister and the Council of State accompanied by delegations from the House of Notables and the House of Delegates will recieve Their Majesties, the King and Queen upon their return today to the capital, an event that will be seen by hundreds of thousands present as they return in state to the Winter Palace and by tens of millions worldwide on television.

This happy occasion is, however, but a prelude to that most important and colorful ceremonial event of the political year-the State Opening of the Parliment, which will take place next Tuesday where with all the awesome pomp and circumstance usual for such an important occasion His Majesty will deliver The Speech from the Throne and will command the convocation of the Parliment.

Now, good members, who could possibly be sad about that?? cheers.

[Landgrave]

Not to mention if one is so inclined, one can use the position to promote favorite charities and causes such as child welfare, the arts etc.

[Thomas Parkman]

And if only I could spell. Horrors. It's Parliament stupid (me). You know I read my usual idiotic babbling and am regularly horrorfied. It seems when I get in front of a computer screen I am like the bird before the open mouth of the 11 foot bushmaster. I just misspell and mangle the English language all over the place. Of course if I were royalty this would be considered merely a charming eccentricity, along with my totally illegible handwriting.

Or I could have it a la Charles II, when shown the famous epitaph of Charles II, "here lies our sovereign lord the King, whose word no man relies on. He never said a foolish thing or ever did a wise one." to which CII replied: "My words are my own, my deeds are my ministers." I could then blame all my typos and misspelled words on those idiot ministers of mine. We all know politicians are stupid beyond belief anyway. cheers. Thomas R (aka Thomas Parkman)

[Empress]

Well, if it is sad, then it was their own choice, and they most likely were well informed of the consequences of the decision that they were making.

Further more, I would suggest that no one minimize the importance of love in all of this. Love can and often does over ride any other problem that may arise. If there is true love in a relationship, there is also support, friendship, trust, and a built in support network to help over come difficulties.

So, in my opinion, giving up something to marry the person of your dreams, whom you love is not sad. In the end we all give something up or change something when we marry someone. It is inevitable, we are no longer just one person, but part of a couple, and our actions and decisions affect that other person, royal or not.

[princess olga]

Originally Posted by fee

Sad?
Whom are you kidding?
They lead such a sheltered and privileged live, and most of them do not work half as much as their average citizen does.
One word :
NO

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.

[royaltywatcher]

Whether a royal marriage goes badly, and becomes sad, either immediately or over time depends largely on the love and support of the prince and the strength of the marriage.

While I don't think marrying into the royal family is sad, I do think that being pushed out of one is. You just have to look at Princess Diana and Princess Alexandra to see that. It's hard enough to deal with a failed marriage without having to endure the public humiliation, the change in title, privilege and access and the limited rights to your own children. That's were the real sadness kicks in. If I were a princess, I think that would always be at the edge of my consciousness. In a way, you're always princess-presumptive, meaning we presume the marriage will last, but if it doesn't, you're busted back down to commoner, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

[tenngirl]

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!

[royaltywatcher]

Originally Posted by tenngirl

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!

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!