5 ms·

> Spending his life serving the country. More like spending his life having the country serve him.

danielrpa 6y ago
It cuts both ways. The life of a British Royal is better than almost anyone else's. At the same time, they don't really have a lot of freedom in the usual sense - a lot of ceremonies, formal parties, events etc. You might have a better life as an retired, anonymous millionaire with some US$5M in the bank (which would also make you extremely privileged).
- blackshaw 6y ago
  True. The royal family aren't just our rulers, they're our prisoners. Can you imagine being a high-ranking member of the British royal family? Your life isn't your own - you can't pursue the career of your choosing, you have an enormous amount of obligations and you have all the usual downsides of fame, and this is all by accident of birth, not something that you chose. The job might have its perks but I'm still glad to be a commoner. It's the minor royals who have it best, I think. Zara Tindall could walk down most roads in Britain and not be recognised - she gets the riches and privileges, but only a tiny fraction of the downsides experienced by her grandmother.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Meghan Markle talked about this: "In the car ride over, however, the importance of the meeting sunk in as Harry asked Meghan, "Do you know how to curtsy?" She told Oprah: "I thought genuinely that that was what happens outside. I thought that was part of the fanfare. I didn't think that's what happens inside. I said, 'But it's your grandmother.' He goes, 'It's the queen.' That was really the first moment that the penny dropped.""[0] Per her telling of the story, we may concluded that Harry really never had a grandmother like many other people do. It seems it's always been 'formal' in the royal family. That the ideas of duty and royalty have come before family. That's not a life that I would want to live or a family I would want to have. That said, their wealth and privilege may make up for it. But it's not perfect. [0]https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-story-about-meeting-the-queen-48203526 https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-inter...
    - ksec 6y ago
      >their wealth and privilege may make up for it. These Royals cant spent their wealth like billionaires either. So wealth certainly isn't a thing to be worth considering. And I mean if that is all the stuff we could tell and see, imagine all the other things we dont. In a modern world, most people, even in the high middle class wouldn't want to trade what they have to what is considered to be privilege as Royal.
      - teachrdan 6y ago
        > cant spend their wealth like billioaires What would they spend it on? Fancy houses? Private transport around the world? Lavish vacations? They get all of those things for free already. I suppose it wouldn't do for Prince Charles to buy a 200' yacht. But other than that, I'm not sure how much he, or any other royal, is suffering for not being able to spend their wealth like the rest of the 0.1%.
        Symbiote 6y ago
        There was a royal yacht, although it was decommissioned in 1997 and the royal family didn't/don't seem interested in another. They also have (use of) a royal train. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Train
        ben_w 6y ago
        Once you get over about $10 million per family member, you can have essentially any house, holiday, or private transport you desire. Spending like billionaires means political power or privately funded moonshot projects.
        teachrdan 6y ago
        The royal family doesn't need to spend money to have political power--the queen and other members of the royal family already lobby in secret to pass or scuttle laws to their benefit.[0] Perhaps they can't singlehandedly fund moonshot projects. But if that's the extent to which royals are hampered, then perhaps they have an alright deal after all, what with being born into a system where enjoy a lifestyle that would cost tens of millions to sustain for anyone else. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...
- fastball 6y ago
  They can leave whenever they want. Golden handcuffs are not actual handcuffs.
  - danielrpa 6y ago
    Do you ever really leave? No matter what you do, the media will be after you. Not a day of complete peace of mind.
    - LightG 6y ago
      There are many low-profile Royals. Some I never ever hear about. Unfortunately, Meghan seems to have captured the imagination for some reason.
  - toomanybeersies 6y ago
    > They can leave whenever they want. Not to imply equivalence in magnitude, but people say say the same about people trapped in abusive relationships.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Um, not sure what you're trying to do here. People saying the same thing about two different situations does not in any way make the situations similar or equivalent, and the fact that you are even making the connection is kinda gross tbh.
  - maccard 6y ago
    No, they can't. See Harry & Meghan for what happens when you leave.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >See Harry & Meghan for what happens when you leave. You stay rich, wealthy and influential and parlay your newfound celebrity into millions of dollars' worth of streaming media and book deals? Oh no wait, sorry, they're just wealthy now but no longer obscenely wealthy. The horror.
Someone 6y ago
It’s made of gold, it’s big, but it still is a cage.
nicky0 6y ago
He did more for me than I did for him.
- simonh 6y ago
  I couldn't agree more. That's true of anyone who served in WW2 of course, from naval officer to an RMP like my grandfather, but that doesn't diminish his contribution.
robbiep 6y ago
In Ottawa in 1969, as premier Pierre Trudeau chipped away at Canada’s royal connections, Philip bluntly observed, “I think it’s a complete misconception to imagine that the Monarchy exists in the interests of the Monarch – it doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people: in a sense – we don’t come here for our health, so to speak. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves … I think that the important thing about it is that if, at any stage, people feel that it has no further part to play, then for goodness sake let’s end the thing on amicable terms without having a row about it.” He had said the same thing of Australia in 1967. “If the monarchy is of value, retain it ... If not, get rid of it.” Robert Lacey claims that Prince Philip’s immediate response to the outcome of the 1999 republic referendum was, “What’s the matter with these people? Can’t they see what’s good for them?” If it’s not clear to non-Australians, in the 1999 referendum we voted to keep the monarchy (though probably more through the phrasing of the question in the opinion of some) From https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-edinburgh-who-went-where-the-storm-carried-him-20191221-p53m33.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-ed...*

It cuts both ways. The life of a British Royal is better than almost anyone else's. At the same time, they don't really have a lot of freedom in the usual sense - a lot of ceremonies, formal parties, events etc. You might have a better life as an retired, anonymous millionaire with some US$5M in the bank (which would also make you extremely privileged).

blackshaw 6y ago
True. The royal family aren't just our rulers, they're our prisoners. Can you imagine being a high-ranking member of the British royal family? Your life isn't your own - you can't pursue the career of your choosing, you have an enormous amount of obligations and you have all the usual downsides of fame, and this is all by accident of birth, not something that you chose. The job might have its perks but I'm still glad to be a commoner. It's the minor royals who have it best, I think. Zara Tindall could walk down most roads in Britain and not be recognised - she gets the riches and privileges, but only a tiny fraction of the downsides experienced by her grandmother.
- Balgair 6y ago
  Meghan Markle talked about this: "In the car ride over, however, the importance of the meeting sunk in as Harry asked Meghan, "Do you know how to curtsy?" She told Oprah: "I thought genuinely that that was what happens outside. I thought that was part of the fanfare. I didn't think that's what happens inside. I said, 'But it's your grandmother.' He goes, 'It's the queen.' That was really the first moment that the penny dropped.""[0] Per her telling of the story, we may concluded that Harry really never had a grandmother like many other people do. It seems it's always been 'formal' in the royal family. That the ideas of duty and royalty have come before family. That's not a life that I would want to live or a family I would want to have. That said, their wealth and privilege may make up for it. But it's not perfect. [0]https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-story-about-meeting-the-queen-48203526 https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-oprah-inter...
  - ksec 6y ago
    >their wealth and privilege may make up for it. These Royals cant spent their wealth like billionaires either. So wealth certainly isn't a thing to be worth considering. And I mean if that is all the stuff we could tell and see, imagine all the other things we dont. In a modern world, most people, even in the high middle class wouldn't want to trade what they have to what is considered to be privilege as Royal.
    - teachrdan 6y ago
      > cant spend their wealth like billioaires What would they spend it on? Fancy houses? Private transport around the world? Lavish vacations? They get all of those things for free already. I suppose it wouldn't do for Prince Charles to buy a 200' yacht. But other than that, I'm not sure how much he, or any other royal, is suffering for not being able to spend their wealth like the rest of the 0.1%.
      - Symbiote 6y ago
        There was a royal yacht, although it was decommissioned in 1997 and the royal family didn't/don't seem interested in another. They also have (use of) a royal train. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMY_Britannia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Train
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Once you get over about $10 million per family member, you can have essentially any house, holiday, or private transport you desire. Spending like billionaires means political power or privately funded moonshot projects.
        teachrdan 6y ago
        The royal family doesn't need to spend money to have political power--the queen and other members of the royal family already lobby in secret to pass or scuttle laws to their benefit.[0] Perhaps they can't singlehandedly fund moonshot projects. But if that's the extent to which royals are hampered, then perhaps they have an alright deal after all, what with being born into a system where enjoy a lifestyle that would cost tens of millions to sustain for anyone else. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que...
fastball 6y ago
They can leave whenever they want. Golden handcuffs are not actual handcuffs.
- danielrpa 6y ago
  Do you ever really leave? No matter what you do, the media will be after you. Not a day of complete peace of mind.
  - LightG 6y ago
    There are many low-profile Royals. Some I never ever hear about. Unfortunately, Meghan seems to have captured the imagination for some reason.
- toomanybeersies 6y ago
  > They can leave whenever they want. Not to imply equivalence in magnitude, but people say say the same about people trapped in abusive relationships.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Um, not sure what you're trying to do here. People saying the same thing about two different situations does not in any way make the situations similar or equivalent, and the fact that you are even making the connection is kinda gross tbh.
- maccard 6y ago
  No, they can't. See Harry & Meghan for what happens when you leave.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >See Harry & Meghan for what happens when you leave. You stay rich, wealthy and influential and parlay your newfound celebrity into millions of dollars' worth of streaming media and book deals? Oh no wait, sorry, they're just wealthy now but no longer obscenely wealthy. The horror.

Someone 6y ago

It’s made of gold, it’s big, but it still is a cage.

nicky0 6y ago

He did more for me than I did for him.

simonh 6y ago
I couldn't agree more. That's true of anyone who served in WW2 of course, from naval officer to an RMP like my grandfather, but that doesn't diminish his contribution.

robbiep 6y ago

In Ottawa in 1969, as premier Pierre Trudeau chipped away at Canada’s royal connections, Philip bluntly observed, “I think it’s a complete misconception to imagine that the Monarchy exists in the interests of the Monarch – it doesn’t. It exists in the interests of the people: in a sense – we don’t come here for our health, so to speak. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves … I think that the important thing about it is that if, at any stage, people feel that it has no further part to play, then for goodness sake let’s end the thing on amicable terms without having a row about it.” He had said the same thing of Australia in 1967. “If the monarchy is of value, retain it ... If not, get rid of it.” Robert Lacey claims that Prince Philip’s immediate response to the outcome of the 1999 republic referendum was, “What’s the matter with these people? Can’t they see what’s good for them?” If it’s not clear to non-Australians, in the 1999 referendum we voted to keep the monarchy (though probably more through the phrasing of the question in the opinion of some) From https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-edinburgh-who-went-where-the-storm-carried-him-20191221-p53m33.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/prince-philip-duke-of-ed...*