Should have known better!

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]I am somewhat amused by the idea that the royal family live a privileged life.....having to dress up and put myself on show is not my idea of privilege, neither is being caretaker to x number of artworks or buildings, in addition these buildings are often well adrift from modern standards....[/quote]I am willing to bet that many unemployed and homeless people in the UK would happily swap places with those members of the royal family who do not have proper jobs yest receive far more than than the usual benefits and have far better accomodation provided. But perhaps you know different.[:)]

Seriously though I do think that they do have a privileged life  even if it does have some downsides. I am sure they don't have problems getting tables in fashionable restaurants or excellent seats for the theatre or opera.

 

[Russethouse]

All things are relevant - I once looked after children whose grand parents had a grace and favour residence in St James Palace which really was no great shakes, needed re wriring, re roofing and re everything else, to bring it up to current norm.

I guess the family I looked after were pretty upper bracket, but they were very practical,  there was no excess and I understand the Queen was pretty 'economical ' too, there is privilege and privilege.....yes they have a nice life in so far as some one gets them up, and points them in them in the right direction, but would I swap ...no, I would not....

[Frenchie]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]Clearly, the "double standards" of which Frenchie speaks are something even she is guilty of. I seem to remember there being quite some differences of opinion about Mr Strauss-Kahn as well.



[/quote]

I was thinking about it when I wrote my post... [:)]

At the time , I tried to explain that the French have a different view about the private life of political men/ women. They are entitled to privacy. So when people learnt President Mitterrand had had a child with his mistress, clearly the vast majority of people estimated that it didn't make him a worse (or better! ) President.

 It was just a fact. No scandal.

At the time of the DSK story, many people on the forum argued that as long as you are famous, you know you are always susceptible of being spied upon, watched,etc.... , that in the UK privacy does not apply to political men,famous people...

Does it to the members of the Royal family then ? ?

By the way, my position is the same. These pics are against privacy.  In my view,everybody is entitled to some privacy,whatever the nationality. No double standards from me, you see........

But I think the reaction is out of proportion !!

[YCCMB]

Exactly the point, then. In the UK, people who put themselves forward for public office are expected to be beyond reproach. If they are going to stick their head above the parapet and expect the rest of the population to trust and respect them, they'd better have a cupboard entirely free of skeletons. We've had an endless list of politicians who got the boot because they couldn't keep their trousers on. Any outrage about S-K involved no double standards. If he'd been a Brit, I suspect the outrage would have been even greater.

Unfortunately for the members of any and all royal families, they don't put themselves forward for anything very much, they just get born into a family which has a job to do. Whether one considers that job to be worthwhile, necessary or outmoded and redundant is a matter of personal opinion, but they just have to get on with it until there's either a revolution or a war. However, they are probably entitled to expect a bit of downtime that doesn't involve some sort of self-imposed house arrest.

If Prince Charles had stood for the job of president of the IMF, or the PS, I wouldn't have wanted him to get it either. And not just because he's probably crap at maths.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

All things are relevant - I once looked after children whose grand parents had a grace and favour residence in St James Palace which really was no great shakes, needed re wriring, re roofing and re everything else, to bring it up to current norm.

I guess the family I looked after were pretty upper bracket, but they were very practical,  there was no excess and I understand the Queen was pretty 'economical ' too, there is privilege and privilege.....yes they have a nice life in so far as some one gets them up, and points them in them in the right direction, but would I swap ...no, I would not....

[/quote]I agree that all things are relative. I was not referring to the vast majority of non-royal recipients of Grace and favour residences but to those members of the royal family who expect us to bow and scrape to them. I still think they lead priviledged lives compared to the rest of us who have to pay for them through are taxes.

At least in a republic we are not expected to subsidise uncles, aunts, cousins etc of the head of state. I see no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise healthy adults to that extent.

[Catalpa]

[quote user="ericd"][quote user="KathyF"]

So the fact that they are already targets somehow makes this no big deal? And if it was someone you loved whose privacy had been similarly invaded - would this still be no big deal? I think you should be ashamed of yourself!

[/quote]

 

I am not ashamed at all, as this doesn't bother me one yota. Please do get a life, there are people dying of hunger in Africa, what are you doing about it?

[/quote]

Wow. It's rare to see such a spectacular and comprehensive own goal. Hoist. Petard. Much?

[Alan Zoff]

I still think you are all making a mountain out of two mole hills.

[Catalpa]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]If, as a member of the Royal Family, the Government, the "A" list or for that matter a bog-standard member of the public, you can't expect privacy in your own front garden or in a secluded place without some (*^()_!! taking your photograph, then the world is really going mad.[/quote]

Indeed.

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I think it odd that people feel the need to "remind" us that there's famine, war and destruction going on in the world. Is this based on an assumption that because people choose to have a discussion on a particular topic, they have no knowledge of, or interest in other subjects? Or is it because they feel a need to establish some sort of moral or intellectual superiority? [/quote]

I think it is exactly that - and yet... they are spending their valuable, sought-after time reading and responding to a thread on a subject about which they care nothing. Allegedly. People are endlessly interesting.

My opinion is that peeping toms / voyeurs should be prosecuted.

[PaulT]

I remember reading once that Diana and Fergie would talk about going topless but it was always a no no.

Now, to my mind, if the Royal family would be just a little bit normal then this sort of thing would not be considered newsworthy.

I think I am right that Royal families such as the Dutch and Swedish are far more liberal and do not attract this type of attention.

Paul

[Quillan]

[quote user="Rabbie"]

At least in a republic we are not expected to subsidise uncles, aunts, cousins etc of the head of state. I see no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise healthy adults to that extent.

[/quote]

This is the same old onion that keeps coming up time and time again. The 'Civil List' that paid for the "uncles, aunts, cousins etc" is no longer and has not been around for a while now. The new system has dramatically reduced those that use to receive money and now it is only the Queen and her direct family, one of the reasons why some people were missing from the balcony at the closer of the Olympic Games.

The 'new' system for financing 'The Royals' does not involve tax payers money at all with the exception of royal duties that are carried out at the command of the government. The 'new' system is called "The Sovereign Grant" which is calculated as 15% of the income from the Crown Estates, the rest of the money goes to the Exchequers account (i.e. the government).

There is no longer a Royal Flight nor a Royal Yacht indeed for the current visit to Asia the prince and princess travelled on a scheduled flight admittedly first class but it is significantly cheaper then the old Royal Flight. If British Airways wish to allow the Queen or her family exclusive use of one of their aircraft then that's up to them but the Queen will only pay for a First Class seat for herself and those in attendance some of whom travel normal class.

Much of the Queens estates, buildings, art work etc does not even really belong to her it belongs to the state. If she was a bit hard up and wanted to sell one of her houses like Buck house for example she would not be allowed.

I doubt you are interested but if you want to check I have provided two links below.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Overview.aspx

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leg_sovereign_grant.htm

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="PaulT"]

I remember reading once that Diana and Fergie would talk about going topless but it was always a no no.

Paul

[/quote]

Actually Fergie did and was photographed as well. Not only was she topless but some fella was sucking her toe at the same time, yuck.

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Russethouse"]

All things are relevant - I once looked after children whose grand parents had a grace and favour residence in St James Palace which really was no great shakes, needed re wriring, re roofing and re everything else, to bring it up to current norm.

I guess the family I looked after were pretty upper bracket, but they were very practical,  there was no excess and I understand the Queen was pretty 'economical ' too, there is privilege and privilege.....yes they have a nice life in so far as some one gets them up, and points them in them in the right direction, but would I swap ...no, I would not....

[/quote]I agree that all things are relative. I was not referring to the vast majority of non-royal recipients of Grace and favour residences but to those members of the royal family who expect us to bow and scrape to them. I still think they lead priviledged lives compared to the rest of us who have to pay for them through are taxes.

At least in a republic we are not expected to subsidise uncles, aunts, cousins etc of the head of state. I see no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise healthy adults to that extent.

[/quote]

Rabbie, Peraps you haven't noticed but the Royal family is being slimmed down, and the person behind this initiative is Prince Charles. ( much to the wrath of Prince Andrew apparently )

At the end of the Jubilee celebrations the people on the balcony were her maj, Prince Charles , Camilla, William , Kate and Harry. That s to be the shape of things to come.

I'm pretty sure I've read that Prince Charles subsidises Kate's clothing bill, now her husband has inherited a significant sum maybe that has stopped.

When a lot of people talk of luxury I suspect they are thinking more of Elton John, rather than the Royal family. What might be termed 'old money' families often don't live quite the lives one might expect.

[woolybanana]

Old money does need to show itself off and usually doesnt.

[Loiseau]

???

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Russethouse"]

All things are relevant - I once looked after children whose grand parents had a grace and favour residence in St James Palace which really was no great shakes, needed re wriring, re roofing and re everything else, to bring it up to current norm.

I guess the family I looked after were pretty upper bracket, but they were very practical,  there was no excess and I understand the Queen was pretty 'economical ' too, there is privilege and privilege.....yes they have a nice life in so far as some one gets them up, and points them in them in the right direction, but would I swap ...no, I would not....

[/quote]I agree that all things are relative. I was not referring to the vast majority of non-royal recipients of Grace and favour residences but to those members of the royal family who expect us to bow and scrape to them. I still think they lead priviledged lives compared to the rest of us who have to pay for them through are taxes.

At least in a republic we are not expected to subsidise uncles, aunts, cousins etc of the head of state. I see no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise healthy adults to that extent.

[/quote] Rabbie, Peraps you haven't noticed but the Royal family is being slimmed down, and the person behind this initiative is Prince Charles. ( much to the wrath of Prince Andrew apparently ) At the end of the Jubilee celebrations the people on the balcony were her maj, Prince Charles , Camilla, William , Kate and Harry. That s to be the shape of things to come. I'm pretty sure I've read that Prince Charles subsidises Kate's clothing bill, now her husband has inherited a significant sum maybe that has stopped. When a lot of people talk of luxury I suspect they are thinking more of Elton John, rather than the Royal family. What might be termed 'old money' families often don't live quite the lives one might expect.[/quote]And about time too.  I welcome the long overdue slimming down. I hope also that once William and Kate have produced an heir Harry will also be on the pruning list. However I don't want to fall out with you over this and I think we can both agree that theQueen does an excellent job. It's just some of her relatives that seem to think they are better than the rest of us that get up my nose. Too many of them seem to expect to be bowed and scraped to.

[Wilko]

I talked with an old mate today who still works for a national newspaper and there are very strong rumours that what has really teed off/frightened the royal couple are the piccies of what happened after the sun tan lotion had been applied !!

The Italian mag has said that they have 200 frames so the chances are that the photographer was there for some time..........so where were the security men ?? I would have assumed that someone in their entourage/security would have been briefed as to the capabilities of modern long lenses and a balcony on high ground, with clear views, should have rung some alarm bells.

W

[ericd]

An interesting moment last night on the news, Harry and Kate welcomed by bare breasted dancers somewhere in the Pacific islands......Show me yours but I won't show you mine [:$]

[Rabbie]

duplicate

[Rabbie]

duplicate

[Rabbie]

[quote user="ericd"]An interesting moment last night on the news, Harry and Kate welcomed by bare breasted dancers somewhere in the Pacific islands......Show me yours but I won't show you mine [:$][/quote]Eric I think you will find it was William with Kate. I don't think Harry will find many topess girls in Afghanistan

[ericd]

[quote user="Rabbie"] Eric I think you will find it was William with Kate. I don't think Harry will find many topess girls in Afghanistan[/quote]

 

Ooopsss I stand corrected William it was. Just listening to the late talk show on radio RTL. Karl Lagerfeld is being interviewed on the subject. His reply ? "...Vous ne vous baladez pas a poil sur un balcon lorsque vous etes celebre"....

[Quillan]

Quite clearly they are not celebrities but members of the royal family. This is recognised by the French courts today.

The real thing of course is the attitude of the editors of the three rags involved. Basically they are saying women get their bits out all time when on holiday so whats the big deal. Well if thats the case what is the big deal, why did they feel the need to publish them if it's no big deal.

I would be interested to know if the sales of these three rags increased for the date the photo's were published.

[Wilko]

"Quite clearly they are not celebrities but members of the royal family"

They are celebrities because they are members of the royal family whether they like it or not.

"This is recognised by the French courts today."

I don't think that French privacy law differentiates between royals and others.

"Well if thats the case what is the big deal, why did they feel the need to publish them if it's no big deal."

Because they are members of the royal family and A list celebrities.

"I would be interested to know if the sales of these three rags increased for the date the photo's were published."

I am told that publishing rights were offered to an Australian magazine for £160,000, so the value of the piccies are huge and I imagine these editors knows what sells magazines or they wouldn't be in the job.

I think that M. Lagerfeld was spot on with his comment,see previous post.

W

PS It's all a storm in an A cup :).

[HoneySuckleDreams]

[quote user="Rabbie"]

At least in a republic we are not expected to subsidise uncles, aunts, cousins etc of the head of state. I see no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise healthy adults to that extent.

[/quote]

I needed a laugh after today! Thank you Rabbie...my ribs hurt.

I've been away from the UK for a while but I must have missed the news that Wiltshire was made into a republic.

I see no reason why "this" taxpayer should subsidise healthly adults either. My taxes are spent on plenty of  uncles/aunts and cousins who "work" for the head of state and do F all.

[NormanH]

[quote user="Rabbie"]

I think that we need to remember that in life if we have great priviledge then we also have great responsibility.

 In this case it is worth asking ourselves why it seems to be just the british royal family that are targetted in this way. The swedish crown princess and her sister seem to avoid this sort of paparazzi attention. Is this perhaps because the british royal family put themselves on a pedestal and expect people to bow and scrape to them?

It can hardly come as a surprise to Kate and Will that the paparazzi are interested in them and so perhaps they should not do things that invite unwelcome pictures in the gutter press. There has been a claim that the pictures were taken from a public road some distance away in which case it seems that french privacy laws do not apply. Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge of the privacy laws can clarify this.

Having been brought up and lived in a country with a monarchy I take the view that in exchange for their priveledged life members of the royal family have a duty to behave responsibly. If they wish to live ordinary lives then they should renounce their privileged status. You can't have your cake and eat it. as they say.

[/quote]

Totally agree, as I said on another thread.

These half-wit nonentities would be of no interest if it wasn't for the accident of who screwed their mother.

More serious is the extraordinary stupidity of the great British public who don't see this together with the ridiculous so called 'Golden Summer' of the two Olympics as a way of diverting attention away from the disastrous policies and record of the failing coalition

Plus