BeatrixFan said:
The Royal Family are supposed to be higher than the rest of us, that is their role. If they act like common people then surely they become common people and they lose their role?
Hm, I agree with you that the Royal Family should be something special. But alas, neither my idea about human equality and the information you could get about their behaviour of the last years clues me into what this "special" actually is.
IMHO it's important to have someone who is constantly there "on the top", one who has access to all necessary means and information in order to give advice to politicians whose position change according to the system of democracy. I really believe that the queen is a much more important person than I am. She works harder, she has much more duties, has done more for others than I ever will do. The same for the current Royal head of states. But does that necessarily mean that the grandson of such a Royal personage is "better" than my own grandson? Mind, I don't have one yet!
The point for me is that it's not heritage alone that counts but heritage and what you do to deserve the place in society you inherit. There is an old German saying about fortunes, wealth and influence: "Grandfather wins it, son keeps it, grandson looses it". We've seen plenty of that!
And I'm convinved that the future of all monarchys will in the future be a person-to-person struggle. A struggle with slight advantages for the next generation as people tend to view the children of beloved personages with friendly eyes but still it will be a struggle to stay there at the top.
Britain may be a bit behind the "trend" when it comes to that but I believ the signals from Scandinavia have reached the people of Britain, too. With "signals" I mean the fact that only the heir/heiress of the heir is a "Royal Highness" while the siblings are only "Highnesses" (Norway), that the grandchildren (and future nephews/nieces) of the monarch are not longer Royal Highnesses, but only "Highnesses" like in Denmark or Counts/Countesses like in the Netherlands etc.
The idea behind this is that the Royal "House" consist only of the members immediately involved with the Crown and the service for the Crown while the others are still considered part of the Royal family but with no Royal privileges. The idea of the "Royal family" of the Uk is still much broader but the reorganization of the civil list has shown that the idea started to take root in GB as well as in the other monarchies.
To come back to the topic of Princess Anne: if you see in which way HRH The Princess Royal has helped the monarchy in the Uk while at the same time
refusing to accept a title for her children and you compare that to HRH The Princess Pushy (aka Princess Michael of Kent) and the way the public reacts to both ladies, then you might be able to see what I mean.