The Disadvantages of Being Royal

[Duc_et_Pair]

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]

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" clich[FONT=&quot]é[/FONT], 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]

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]

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?

 

[Curryong]

A wrinkle? As far as clothing goes, try being a female Royal. Every choice of cut, colour, design of every piece of clothing under the microscope by thousands of other women who buy a newspaper or who owns a computer. Going out on a public engagement must feel like being under constant attack. That's one of the main disadvantages of being a Royal in today's world.

 

[Terri Terri]

Oh please! It's not as if the royals rush back home to their computers to check what the public/social media say about their clothing! That would be extremely unhealthy as fashion is very subjective and you can never please everybody!

 

[Sun Lion]

Your children not being "yours" - even if you stay in the marriage/stay in the, (for many women marrying a royal), foreign county.

How about this - some quotes from a book I'm reading about the Monaco family -

About Grace: "Many days were spent in boredom."

Her lady-in-waiting is quoted as saying "I had to get used to it" - when talking about Grace taking to her bed in the middle of the day due to her despair over her life in Monaco.

A visitor to the Palace is quoted, saying how Grace "hissed" at him when he accidently stumbled upon her playing with Albert in one of the courtyards. She mistakenly thought her son was being taken from her again.

(Albert was trained to turn to his father for comfort, advice, guidance and to not depend on his mother.)

Grace worked on being a Princess. She had the insight, for example, to study Royalty of the past, and realise the "power/prescence" bestowed by their high/big hairstyles.

(That is where Grace got her ornate and intricate hair inspiration from.)

So she didn't give up, but what a price they all pay, at a personal level.

Even Caroline was quoted last year, saying she and her brother were closer to the nanny than their mother.

This book is full of "the scales falling from your eyes" moments about such a life.

I could quote about Lord Snowdon's experience when he married Princess Margaret, what marrying the Queen cost Phillip, and so on.

The personal cost can't be repaid by getting to dress up and live your life in nice rooms.

 

[Curryong]

No, but there is still plenty of criticism of various aspects of Royal fashion by newspaper columnists and magazine editors. And we know tabloid journalists troll Twitter etc in search of material on royals.

 

[Terri Terri]

But again they don't have to read or see the articles if they don't want to.

As far Grace, Prince Philip and Antony Armstrong-Jones....those were different times. Modern royals live much differently now, especially when it comes to parenting their children.

 

[Sun Lion]

But again they don't have to read or see the articles if they don't want to.

As far Grace, Prince Philip and Antony Armstrong-Jones....those were different times. Modern royals live much differently now, especially when it comes to parenting their children.

That can only be a good thing.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

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.

Princess Laurentein of The Netherlands has been active in promoting literacy since 2001.

 

[tommy100]

I think it possibly depends on your expectations and your status / rank within the RF.

The more 'senior' in the family you are the higher the price of being royal probably yet also, the better the privileges. I mean, for example the younger children of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg seem largely to be left alone apart from in very specific forums like this yet get to enjoy access to palaces, support of the Royal Household, a certain status and (within Luxembourg at least) they will have doors opened to them. Yet they aren't even expected to live in the country and can live pretty anonymously in a nice house paid for by the RF with their allowance from their dad which means working is more about their interests than a necessity.

Contrast that with the Prince & Princess of Wales who live in greater luxury and with greater wealth but are followed everywhere by the media, can't even go into hospital without press chasing every car that then leaves that hospital in case it is them inside. Yet this interest also means they can effect greater change in the world.

Morally I'd love to say I'd take the Wales position and speak and promote causes I think are important (for me that would be veterans care, education, culture) but I think in reality I'd rather be someone like Prince Sebastien or Lady Sarah Chatto etc who are certainly privileged but without as big a profile or expectation upon them.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I have to imagine making friends and finding someone to spend the rest of your life with is incredibly difficult, especially the higher up the pecking order you are. A part of you will never be entirely sure, until you meet the right person, that the people you're meeting want to be with you because you're a good person and have many admirable qualities, as opposed to the money/title/access to jewels. There's always an element of having to be guarded to avoid getting hurt or being used.

 

[victor1319]

... but I think in reality I'd rather be someone like Prince Sebastien or Lady Sarah Chatto etc who are certainly privileged but without as big a profile or expectation upon them.

I can imagine, this is difficult too from a historical-psychological viewpoint. Always a certain "What could have been"...

A lot of noble offspring disappears into obscurity. Perhaps not in Germany, at least in parts, since the latter born sons inherit at least the family name, the very long one. But in England and so on - a bit money, but they lose the titles!

So, there is a certain pressure to be the root of a new family, I could imagine - a new famous family.

I mean: a line of descendants back to the Middle Ages or something, that ends in your branch of the family with you and disappears into the stream of life! Bitter!

 

[Mbruno]

I think it possibly depends on your expectations and your status / rank within the RF.

[...]

Contrast that with the Prince & Princess of Wales who live in greater luxury and with greater wealth but are followed everywhere by the media, can't even go into hospital without press chasing every car that then leaves that hospital in case it is them inside. Yet this interest also means they can effect greater change in the world.

Not being able to go anywhere without being chased by the press is unfortunately something that happens to many celebrities nowadays, and not just to senior royals. At least senior royals, behind the gates of their estates or official residences, have considerable privacy as those are secured spaces. Furthermore, senior royals have much better security (paid for by the state) than any private citizen would probably have.

I suppose that being a public figure is a bit of a nuisance, but I tend to think that senior royals grow used to it having had the experience of being in that situation since childhood. It may be tougher for consorts, who were not born into this life, to get used to it and, in fact, that was one of reasons why it was convenient in the past for royals to marry only other royals.

I have to imagine making friends and finding someone to spend the rest of your life with is incredibly difficult, especially the higher up the pecking order you are. A part of you will never be entirely sure, until you meet the right person, that the people you're meeting want to be with you because you're a good person and have many admirable qualities, as opposed to the money/title/access to jewels. [...].

Honestly I don't think one can truly separate the two things. I tend to believe that all the middle-class consorts who married senior royals in different countries over the past 60 years or so genuinely fell in love with their spouses, but being senior royals (and I am referring here specifically to future kings or reigning queens) was an integral part of who they were, so it is not like they were getting married despite their future spouse's status.

We should keep in mind, however, that, although it is now rare for a royal marriage to be denied consent, the law, at least in the European monarchies, still requires such marriages to be consented to for the prince or princess who is getting married to keep his or her succession rights and the succession rights of his or her descendants. So, at least in theory, there are still legal safeguards in place against an evident "gold-digging" or ill-intentioned marriage. Most senior royals, however, should be mature and experienced enough to preempt such possibility. Like their parents or the government, they are also mindful of the importance of choosing a person who can be a suitable queen consort or prince consort, as that impacts the future of the monarchy.

 

[Somebody]

Most celebrities actively search the limelight, so it is because of their own actions that they live a public life. It is different for royals who were born into it (or happened to fall in love with a royal) and cannot escape it - although especially for those slightly less senior royals, how they go about seeking publicity definitely adds to or reduces how much they live in the limelight.