This is a particularly naive take given the scope of Aurelius' life and the lives of other Stoics (who were variably affected by their "privilege"). Yes, Aurelius was privileged in terms of his social status, but he was weathered by misfortune in his relationships and health. He was given power, but used it well for the benefit of those affected by his power--not just himself. In this case, not his philosophy but the results of his philosophy in application justify his rule and place him among the "five good emperors".

The point of Aurelius' privilege is his perspective towards it, which is that his circumstances are transient and both fortune and misfortune come and go throughout time. He knew, as you do, that he did not earn his privilege and therefore could not claim it as his victory. For this reason--not the privilege itself--Aurelius is of note.

Simply looking at the highs of these Stoics' lives and using them to cast doubt on the validity of their philosophy as a whole is a very partial understanding of their lives and work and does them a disservice.