Perhaps, if we are talking about public figures in general, but if we are talking strictly about royalty, my original opinion still stands.
Then we will have to agree to disagree on that.
There really is a difference between knowing how to act in a situation and actually getting the practice doing so. I think I may just be spinning my wheels trying to explain this, but what she is being exposed to right now is far and beyond the simple table and manners etiquette that you keep suggesting that it is.
No it isn't, or do you think that HM eats out of her Tupperware or private supper parties are eaten off plates on their laps?
As children of an officer, they would have been at the summer ball and all the other events put on for officers and their ladies where strict dress codes and exemplary behaviour is demanded. Attending a gala where a royal is present, is no different.
"The total cost of security would have included about £12,000 on business class flights for the officers, who stay in five-star hotels with their charges and are understood to receive £120 a day in expenses on top of their wages."
Maybe the taxpayers should be upset at how high on the hog the security officers live while they are on duty, instead of being upset at the royals.
If as you say, they need all this protection, of course the officers are obliged to stay in the same hotels, travel on the same flight and of course they are given an allowance to cover meals etc, all expenses that need not be paid if they did not have to look after these girls. What is worse, is that the figures are from Beatrices trip so will have risen drastically.
But in your opinion, Andrew's money (and that of the rest of the royal family, minus the Waleses) is still all taxpayer money, including the Queen's. Would it honestly make you feel better about the situation if the Queen announced that she was giving Andrew another stipend to pay for the girls' security or, better yet, kept the public in the dark that she was doing it? Certainly we could agree that that is what would happen in such a situation?
Probably but you are missing the point. You said
"In your opinion all of Andrew's money is taxpayer funded money already. In your viewpoint then, what would be the difference if he did pay for their security himself?" The difference is that Andrew, from his pocket money should pay for the protection he feels they need, saving the taxpayer the bill for his daughter.
I know that you read the Daily Mail fairly regularly.
Ah, insults now!
I could choose the Times or the Telegraph to post, but the Mail does lead with Royal related stories. Do I consider it worth buying, absolutely not but many 'ordinary' Britains do along with The Mirror and The Sun, the last two don't seem to specialise in ordinary royal related stories on page 3.
Can you not honestly see an article such as the one I made the speculation about if Andrew and Sarah were to take the responsibility of paying for the security themselves? They already claim that Sarah bought Beatrice's car and that it is she that pays for the "family" vacations because Andrew is too poor.
I should think most Brits would think great, about time. I don't recall an outcry about the family holidays or the car!
How exactly did I insult anyone? I was making a parallel reference. If anything, my post could read that I was fully acknowledging that there were more deserving military personnel than Andrew. I have the utmost respect for people in the military and, quite frankly, view them all as 'heroes', so I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.
It could read, but doesn't and my comment stands, I fail to see how I have put words in your mouth, I interpreted your post in a manner you perhaps didn't mean, in much the same way that you interpret mine in a different manner to what was intended.
----------------
We are not going to agree on this, whether it is the age difference, the Anglo/American difference, expected standards difference or what, I don't know, but I'm off to start that petition to my MP, as you suggested!