Her sister married a Prince. Does that mean she must work without pay? Listening to Radio 5 this morning you’d certainly think so …
While discussing what to name English Sparkling Wines the wine commentator suggested:
“Call it Pippa, then she can promote and represent it and of course she wouldn’t charge.”
Why the “of course?” Yes she’s from an affluent middle-class family, but does the fact her sister married into Royalty mean she becomes an indentured servant of the Crown too, working for free for every pro-UK cause?
It is an interesting position to be in. She’s not a Royal. She’s not part of the Civil list, so gets no capital from the state – yet because of the high profile wedding day, she’s now almost seen as public property.
Of course you could argue, “she’s now a mega celebrity and will make a fortune, so she should do things like this for free.” Then again if she does go on to commercialise the Middleton brand in that way, she’s likely to be pilloried for being mercenary and taking advantage (think of Fergie).
Now this is just my stream of thoughts on the back of a relatively off-the-cuff remark on the radio – but I do think it raises an interesting question – does Kate’s union automatically tie her sister into a quasi-Royal life too with the same duties?
Your thoughts welcome.