"I'll celebrate her birth when..."

I agree about OTT, merlot, (that's the whole idea, I think) but I still think it's good that someone is brave enough to say these things out loud. some stirring is good.

Oooh spot the Freudian slip in my last post

No doubt there are drawbacks to the royal lifestyle but I believe many people experience far more challenging lives. Also, the royal family needs, and courts, publicity in order to maintain their popularity. But they call the shots as to when, where, how often and by whom they are photographed and filmed.

I expect an orphaned child living under a bridge somewhere in South America who exists by his/her own wits and is treated as vermin by the police, or a child who spends each day picking through the detritis of a rubbish tip in India might find the idea that children born into a royal family experience suffering equal to their own very confusing.

If the demands of being a member of the royal family are so onerous, it is surprising that they all seem so very contented - and none of them has declined the position.

Given the writer's original rather caustic remarks, perhaps she had to write the article in this way. Journalists, presenters and commentators tend to be quite careful in what they say about the royal family if they wish their careers to flourish.

I enjoyed this article, and thank you for posting the link thatbags. While Princess Charlotte will undoubtedly have better life chances than a poor child living on the streets of South Africa, there is no doubt that she will not have the life chances and opportunities that our daughters have. She is lucky in that she has parents who love each other and are doing their very best, it seems, to keep life as normal as it can be for their family, but......no, she will not have the choices that my daughter has, choices of career, friends, and she will forever be walking a tightrope between what she wants to do, and what is expected of her. I wish her well, but honestly do not envy her, the price of the privileges enjoyed is high. I have always enjoyed my privacy and anonymity, I have no worries of someone selling a photo of me shopping in Aldi, or popping out in my pj's to put the recycling out

thatbags - don't you count George's appearance on the hospital steps after he was born?

Actually, when he waved to the crowd I though 'poor little chap he's already in training to be a royal' - or perhaps he waves at everyone like many two year olds.

I don't have much time for the royals these days but I suppose they can't help being born into the family. I would be more sympathetic if we only had to support the monarch, not the whole bloomin' family.

I don't know that they do 'call the shots' though about where and when they are photographed.
With long-distance lenses photographers can be a long way away and unseen but still get intrusive, invasive of privacy, photos.

I think the press have been pretty good on the whole at respecting the privacy of little George and I hope they will now give Charlotte and him the chance to grow up with a degree of privacy. We don't choose our parents and, until the children are grown up, I think a life away from the sort of paparazzi witnessed in the past would only be fair.
Royal or not, privileged or not, they are children.

Who knows how the monarchy will change by the time she grows up - or even if we will have one? Of course she needs an education - who knows what she may achieve in a future unknown to any of us.
And if it is 'charity work' ( which is implied with a sneer) then what is wrong with a high profile person bringing publicity to a worthy cause? Better than endless holidays and like some.

I think the article is vile, written by someone who thinks they are a whole lot cleverer than they they actually are.

'thought' not 'though'

I didnt think it was vile Rosequartz, I thought the writer was expressing her sympathy for what may be ahead for the new baby, even if it was written in a rather flippant way.

I think she will have very good life chances. She will go to uni and, most likely, choose a career for herself. As Gaga says, things will change. There is such a thing as progress you know. The Royal family has come a long way in recent years.

petallus, guess.

whitewave nothing wrong with reading the Mirror. But I think an awful lot of people read only that.

nottooold, yes, I do count that appearance as George came out of hospital when he was a newborn. The word 'when' in my post should have been 'since'. Whoops.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for Kate. I hope she has friends up at Anmer because when William begins his job as an Air Ambulance pilot coupled with Royal duties she is going to be very isolated. The novelty of the new baby soon wears off as we all know and even if her mother is there with her that's no substitute for the company of pals with small children of their own.

DD said to me yesterday, 'I wonder if shutting the family away on a country estate and then buggering off going back to work is his choice and not hers'

Perhaps she'll join the local toddler group. I wonder if there's a Waitrose nearby. Do they have Waitrose in Norfolk?

I don't think Kate will be lonely although she may be fed up. She will be surrounded by security people, nannies and other servants, I would imagine. Not much fun, I would imagine. I wonder if she's on Mumsnet?

Too many I would imagines - sorry.

Having returned to this thread after yet another day in London, I am just hugely relieved that you don't spend the wee sma' hours actively trawling through the red tops, thatbags! Thank you for the Twitter link . And -jingl - You WERE being ironic when you questioned his name "Fleet Street Fox" weren't you??

We were talking about the new film about the Queen on the way back from the cinema last night, saying that it looked like good fun and we might go and see it. But then both agreed how daft it is when people get so excited at the thought of the Royals doing things that normal people do [I mean; that night the Princess Elizabeth must have had to use a public loo at some point]. I'm not going to revere someone because they occasionally do things that common people do. At the same time [#iknowi'mbeing2faced] I do adore William and greatly respect Anne and Zara [the Queen also for her sense of duty]. And I do wish a happy life for Charlotte and George. As for Kate [who I also like] she has been groomed for her role from birth as much as William has been groomed for his imo. And it amuses me for such rich people to be described as 'commoners' [#dreadtothinkwhatthatmakesme].

I think @fleetstreetfox is a woman.

I only glanced at his/her name! I thought Fleet was the Christian name. Durr!

Yes, like Janet Street-Porter...except StreetFox isn't hyphenated.

Bet some vicars/priests/ministers would have refused to baptise a baby with the name Fleet because it wasn't and approved Christian name

Tegan - how can Kate M have been trained from birth to be Duchess of Cambridge? Isn't she the daughter of a pilot and an air hostess who got lucky at Uni by catching the eye of HRH? She's probably a perfectly pleasant woman, I don't know, but I doubt she was expected to become a royal? Anyway, what a waste of a perfectly good education. [grumpy]

Poor little rich girl! What an awful life they all lead - but they don't have to, do they? I suppose they could opt out, with much media furore.

I don't have a lot of time for any of them; they are a complete anachronism but do, I suppose, serve a purpose in being figureheads, encouraging tourism etc, etc. and being, theoretically, non political in that they are apart from government.

I cannot comprehend people's obsession with them all, though.

And it amuses me for such rich people to be described as 'commoners [#dreadtothinkwhatthatmakesme]
Common as muck like me perhaps?

GillT57 perhaps 'vile' was a very strong word, but I thought it was quite nasty pretending to be sympathetic.

I think now that this baby has arrived it should let Harry off the hook to be free to do whatever he wishes with his life (eg go off to live in Africa with Chelsy?)