'Should Pippa Middleton work for free?' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Penelope

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "Should Pippa Middleton work for free?" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

ifonlyitwaseasier

"of course" she shouldn't!

wow, can't believe just because her inlaws have a few bob people think she should give up all salary and be "hire for free" Pippa

Denando

Doesn't Kate have a brother too? Wasn't HE part of the wedding? Didn't he do the beautiful reading, eloquently and without nerves? Surely the same should be applied to him as to Pippa. But I bet few people actually remember him. Looks can get you a long way in this world!

sidsmum

I think some people have rather strange ideas. Pippa appeared as a bridesmaid at her sister's wedding. That does not make her royal, and she should not be expected to act as royal. She's had her fifteen minutes, now let her going on with being a wage slave like the rest of us!

southlundon

But could the commentator have meant that because her name is used a lot at the moment in the press, every time anything is said about "Pippa", it means they would get free publicity?:/

2sides2everystory

Certainly might be a tough one for her - how to make her life in this world now ever since her famous sister became a Royal and the matron of honour in that dress hit the headline.

It's not just a question of how she makes a living is it? She is seen for better or worse at the moment as some kind of hot media property.

Essentially we're simply highlighting how easy it is for any tabloidesque story to be marketed now if it has her name on it as witnessed even by the existence of this thread. It is up to Pippa to decide which stories she minds or doesn't mind, but clearly she will have little control of what does and does not get published about her decisions or apparent decisions unless or until she disappears from public view entirely.

Even then, there would be perennial "Whatever happened to Pippa?" stories ! I do hope she fares better than some of the others who have occupied similar 'sideline Royal ornament' positions in the public consciousness thanks to our lovely media industry.

Anyway I am sure we all wish her the best of good luck.

rdchick

No way, that's like if one of my brothers married someone famous/rich I wouldn't be expected to work. I think everyone that can work should work to pay their way. The royal family represent this country and therefore they work for us thus we pay them, they are the highest ambassadors. Pippa is her own woman, she is not 'public property' and like others have said she has a brother - but because he didn't win the ridiculous 'rear of the year' award no one gives a damn about him!!

I think the Middletons are fab and must be a nightmare to have to adjust to such an extremely different way of life! Don't think my family would be able to cope with it! xxx

Regshoe

No she definitely should not be expected to work for free. Though this links to my more general answer - abolish the Royal Family all together. It's quite frankly amazing that we still have the concept of inherited rank, position and privilege, when the concept of equality has become so ingrained in our legal and social systems. Quite how anybody can argue that you get a position/job just because mummy or daddy had it before you is beyond me.

robin_banks

Bo shouldn't, nor should be part of the civil list, some to think of it in time I'd like to see an aboloition of the civil list.

pjcox2005

Regshoe wrote: »

No she definitely should not be expected to work for free. Though this links to my more general answer - abolish the Royal Family all together. It's quite frankly amazing that we still have the concept of inherited rank, position and privilege, when the concept of equality has become so ingrained in our legal and social systems. Quite how anybody can argue that you get a position/job just because mummy or daddy had it before you is beyond me.

I'd be willing to argue it:

Perhaps on historical grounds, that the Royal Family are part of the history of Britain are should continue to be preserved.

Or on economical grounds, in the fact that the revenue they bring in from tourism (see royal wedding as an example) far outweighs the cost of keeping them.

Or on a personal side, that it's quite clear that both in the UK (the wedding, prince philip documentary) and overseas (Canada trip) many people feel it's a privelage to meet the Royal family.

Regshoe

pjcox2005 wrote: »

I'd be willing to argue it:

Perhaps on historical grounds, that the Royal Family are part of the history of Britain are should continue to be preserved.

Or on economical grounds, in the fact that the revenue they bring in from tourism (see royal wedding as an example) far outweighs the cost of keeping them.

Or on a personal side, that it's quite clear that both in the UK (the wedding, prince philip documentary) and overseas (Canada trip) many people feel it's a privelage to meet the Royal family.

You can make arguments certainly, some more valid than others. I would refute the above as follows:

1. Historical grounds - having always done things one way is not necessarily a good reason for continuing to do something. Slavery is a part of the British History, as was repression, concentration camps (we had them before the Nazis), conquest etc. All part of our history but not something we would comtemplate now.

2. Economic grounds - just because something is cheaper/more profitable it does not make it right. It would be cheaper if we cut all foreign aid, abolished benefits, sent the unemployed to work camps and so on. Clearly we aren't about to do any of that (though there have been arguments to cut foreign aid in light of the general public expenditure reductions).

3. The "privilege" of meeting the royal family. To me this is the last dirty remnant of the feudal system that has subjugated people through the ages (and yes I realise as I type this that it sounds a bit Monty Python - "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! "). Why should I, or anybody else feel "privileged" to meet these people? Yes it may be that they have worked tirelessly for good causes for many years etc etc. But the point is that they have only been in a position to do this (and be recognised for this) because they were born into the right family, which is wrong.

An easier example would be Kate Middleton, should I feel privileged to meet her? Why? Because she happened to marry somebody who was born into the right family? That seems even more ridiculous!

I would agree that the Queen has been generally a very good head of state, but I would still argue that she should not have been given that position simply for being born and that just because she has done a job it does not mean her children will automatically do the same. If your father is a surgeon should you automatically be one? Of course not. How about a judge? Of course not! Policeman? No. Fireman? No. Mayor - now there's a good example, a largely cermonial position which is nevertheless elected. If your local Mayor said "you know what I've been so good at this job it stands to reason that my son will be, so he'll be your next Mayor" you'd laugh and tell him to sling his hook.

The reason we have a Royal family? Inertia. You wouldn't set up a new Royal family for a newly formed state, the existing ones are only there because nobody with enough power has stood up and said "come on now, this is ridiculous, time to get rid of them". Without wishing to be cynical the number of politicians/ ex-politicians who style themselves as "Sir...." or "Lord..." may not be entirely unconnected!

Edit: I've just realised today is a rather auspicious day to be arguing to rid ourselves of the monarchy:

"When in the Course of human events.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."