The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:13 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lapalisse, France
Posts: 3,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Princess Alexandra is no different than her cousin Camille Gottlieb. They are the same. It is just a concept that some feel for no other reason than it was taught to them. All people are the same in the eyes of God, for an example.
All people are the same in the eye of God but very few will disagree that we treat Elizabeth II quite differently than Annie Smith, despite their equalness in the eyes of God...

I also disagree that Alexandra and Camille are the same. The last one is a Princess of Hannover, a grand royal dynasty. In essence Mr Peter Phillips is no different for a Prince Harry, both are grandsons of the Queen but their perception and their standing could not differ more.

However, ultimately it are the royals themselves. In some threads some remarked that the new King of Spain is probably Europe's most royal King. That might be so, but he himself ended that "perfect" royal ancestry, like many of his temporaries, so probably he does not care. It is interesting that it seems Grand Duchess María Teresa, herself a commoner and had to find her place at the Court, strongly "steered" her eldest son towards "suitable" candidates. The marriages with Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Stéphanie de Lannoy, Rodolphe van Limburg-Stirum and Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein seem to indicate that brides "with a certain background" are still preferred.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:53 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 5,782
Maria Teresa seems pleased with all of her daughters-in-law ,from the decidedly working class Tessy Anthony to Countess Stephanie De Lannoy to Claire Lademacher, daughter of nouveau rich mega wealth. She and her husband went on record years ago emphasizing that their children would be encouraged to make their own choices for life partners, with no interference from them. It's one of the things I think is so wonderful about the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg.

As fortune would have it, her three eldest sons have each made matches with extraordinary young women, but who couldn't be more different from one another.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:13 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,809
I think that perhaps the biggest reason there is no need for royals to marry royals or even a partner from a "suitable" bloodline or a well established family line is because in this day and age with constitutional monarchies and the EU and countries becoming more and more diverse in their population, those days are long gone by when House X and House Y would betroth their young children to cement a treaty or to present a unified front against King Z or the country of Q. Arranged marriages for political reason was very much the norm during earlier periods of history and the "bride" brought land, wealth, political alliances to the "groom" through marriage. Sometimes, believe it or not, a marriage could prevent a war.

Of course in this day and age, parents still do want their children to marry happily and yet be financially stable and be important in the world. I used to shake my head at my mother when she would describe someone as coming "from good money". To be honest, I've never come across any bad money (except for working as a cashier once. I did get handed a counterfeit bill on one occasion).
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:24 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 16,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
All people are the same in the eye of God but very few will disagree that we treat Elizabeth II quite differently than Annie Smith, despite their equalness in the eyes of God...

I also disagree that Alexandra and Camille are the same. The last one is a Princess of Hannover, a grand royal dynasty. In essence Mr Peter Phillips is no different for a Prince Harry, both are grandsons of the Queen but their perception and their standing could not differ more.

However, ultimately it are the royals themselves. In some threads some remarked that the new King of Spain is probably Europe's most royal King. That might be so, but he himself ended that "perfect" royal ancestry, like many of his temporaries, so probably he does not care. It is interesting that it seems Grand Duchess María Teresa, herself a commoner and had to find her place at the Court, strongly "steered" her eldest son towards "suitable" candidates. The marriages with Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Stéphanie de Lannoy, Rodolphe van Limburg-Stirum and Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein seem to indicate that brides "with a certain background" are still preferred.
I think that much/ most of the Brussels aristocratic circle marries fellow aristocrats. In some families it is rare to find commoners. The Belgian noble association organises a lot of events etc. where everybody meets each other so the chance that a noble will find a noble partner is higher. And of course much of the higher classes put their children on the same schools, catholic youth movements, scouting groups etc. Still, parents preferring their children to marry somebody from a simular social background is not restricted to the nobility.

In the Netherlands the marriages between nobles are less common (though statistically they still marry each other or the patriciate quite often). But the nobles mix more with 'new' elites. For example: the wife of the baron van Wassenaer is a neonatologist and related to the governor of South-Holland, his maternal grandfather is Gerard Wiarda, the late president of the High Counsil. In that light, the marriage partners for the Dutch princes fits with the trend in the group: all academically educated women from upper-middle class backgrounds (save Pss. Annette who has a university degree in psychology but who is from a working class family IIRC). Much of the kings friends come from the nobility/patriciate, are university educated, several of them at Harvard, and have managment jobs in the business world.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:26 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 5,782
Too funny and true Osipi!

My birth family doesn't have a drop of Royal or noble blood but every time I brought a date home my father wanted to know first and foremost what kind of student he was, had he ever been in trouble with the law and what kind of family he came from. That last part was ALWAYS important to him. No riff-raff need apply.

It's the same in many of the remaining dynasties. Some-not all-come from a certain strata of society that they are not interested in seeing diminished by marriages that they feel are not worthy of them. Some things will never change.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-04-2014, 10:25 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
Replying to your January 2014 post, Ish, I consider your information better than that of the Mormon genealogy records. I happen to have a close-by source of the Mormon records because there is a Mormon church, with a records tie to Salt Lake City, less than a mile from my house.
In doing research into my own genealogy of the Middle Ages, I consulted many sources, not one, because I didn't have an absolutely perfect and reliable source to consult. I found "Normans in Scotland", a book by Graeme Ritchie, which helped immensely, even through its footnotes, in directing me to truer genealogical material for my own family in Scotland. Sometimes one looks and looks and only after a long time one finds the "truth." Edison said he invented 999 lightbulbs before he invented one which works.
In the case of obviously enthroned royal families, their records are kept for many many generations by reliable people, so their task is negligible when pinpointing royal descent.

Once again, without actually looking at the Mormon sources I can't really comment on the validity of their claims. All I can say for certain is that the website familysearch.org isn't supported; it's an open site that lets people make trees with no sources.

The Earls Grey are individuals with well recorded families. If sites like the Peerage don't list a child for one of them named Charlotte then chances are they didn't have an acknowledged daughter with that name - and the Peerage lists no such child.

In the case of Robert Woods himself... The whole theory that Edward and his long term mistress had a child that all record of was later erased by Victoria when she was Queen is ridiculous. There are a few different legends that seem to happen here. First of all, it's ascribing far too much power to Elizabeth. Any illegitimate child of Edward's would have been born well before Victoria came to power, meaning that she would have to destroy 20+ years of record linking her half-brother to her father. Given as this would include any private references made in people's diaries, it's not particularly feasible to believe that Victoria had such power.

The second is the fact that the whole idea about Robert Woods is that his parents had him but didn't acknowledge him and instead gave him up for adoption by a Canadian couple. Which... Sure it's within the realm of possibility, but not really likely. This was a long-term relationship. Edward's brothers had acknowledged the children born to their long-term mistresses, and Edward himself had acknowledged children by previous mistresses. The story that Edward had a child with Madame de Saint-Laurent is really just a legend.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-04-2014, 10:43 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
In the modern era, DNA can rule out SOME specific familial diseases. I imagine that this has been done in the cases of non-reigning royals who marry. Quietly, of course.
In the case of a "dominant" gene, which descends to 50% of children (or 75% when both parents have it) there is NO chance of the children having the same mutation if a parent does not have it. So the outlook for royals marrying cousins today could be simpler, in terms of checking out mutation problems scientifically. If a British royal wanted to marry a German cousin, their DNA would be well-mapped and at least the obvious defects could be ruled out, and love could bloom!
I think other traits than we know of descend through families, however, not just traits for physical impairment. Traits of personality descend. Most of you probably have observed this.

Once again, this isn't how genetics works. If a trait is determined by only 1 gene and a person has the markers for both the dominant and recessive trait (Gg) and their spouse just has the recessive markers (gg) then their children each have a 50% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but they could or could not receive it - it is not a guarantee that 50% of their children will receive it. If both parents are Gg then the children have a 75% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but if either parent is GG then they have a 100% chance of receiving it.

Not all traits are determined by just one genetic marker though, so things become even harder to predict. Consider hair colour - that's determined by at least two markers, which is why there are so many different hair colours.

As for royals' DNA being mapped... I strongly doubt that their DNA has been well mapped. We know that some have had at least aspects of their DNA mapped in order to identify the remains of people (i.e. Prince Philip's DNA was used to determine the identity of the remains of the family of Nicholas II), but I strongly doubt there has been an extensive testing of any royal's DNA in order to determine what genetic diseases they have. Royals tend to be pretty private about things, particularly health, and I somehow doubt they'd allow for access to do that (even without cloning considerations).
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-05-2014, 04:26 AM
Tilia C.'s Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: O, Germany
Posts: 3,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Too funny and true Osipi!

My birth family doesn't have a drop of Royal or noble blood but every time I brought a date home my father wanted to know first and foremost what kind of student he was, had he ever been in trouble with the law and what kind of family he came from. That last part was ALWAYS important to him. No riff-raff need apply.

It's the same in many of the remaining dynasties. Some-not all-come from a certain strata of society that they are not interested in seeing diminished by marriages that they feel are not worthy of them. Some things will never change.
Or things change very, very slowly. Nowadays Dad may still ask all his questions, but in the end he has to accept your decision.

And somehow this slow social change goes for all social classes/groups; not just for royals and aristos. Imagine that 100 or 150 years ago a farmer's son wanted to wed the dairy maid. Daddy farmer would have had a mayor fit, because a daughter-in-law had to be a farmer's daughter with a couple of cows and a chest of linen as dowry, and the skills needed by a farmer's wife. The same goes for tradesmen, craftsmen, doctors or parson: they all looked for wives with the right dowry, the right family and business connections, and knowledge of the trade. A daughter of a baker would just know better how to lead a baker's household than the daughter of the smith. Besides the right father-in-law might improve your business connections, or your position within your guild. So craftsmen would arrange marriages within their own guild and tradesmen arranged their marriages within their own trade, if possible.

Nowadays women have their own jobs, they don't "marry" their professions anymore. That freed people to marry for love, and also led to a general disapproval of arranged marriages. A good development, imo.

There is a hitch for reigning royal houses, because there the partners still "marry their job". But then we now have the perception that a profession can be learned by (nearly) anyone and does not have to be inherited. If a farmers daughter can study architecture, then a shop keeper's daughter can learn how to represent her country as a Queen.

I put the "nearly" in brackets because I still believe that it needs some personal qualities and talents to learn certain things. Eg you need the brains to study medicine, and if you are highly intelligent but faint a the sight of blood - well, maybe better study something else.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-27-2014, 04:29 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 945
I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-27-2014, 04:31 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!
exactly...
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 06-06-2015, 12:27 PM
Olyashka's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Joachim of Belgium's Heart, Philippines
Posts: 136
I also wonder why royals and hardcore old-school royalists disagree with royals marrying commoners for the reason it will dilute their royal blood to the Nth degree until it disappears? Is there a rule in genetics that could support that belief of theirs?
For whoever prince/princess it is, it doesn't mean their genetics will be fully overruled by the commoner's blood, regardless of how many royal-commoner intermarriages that might/will happen in their family through generations.
__________________
"And now I know what they're saying as our hearts go to their graves. And we made our love on wasteland...and through the barricades." - Through the Barricades (1986) sung by Spandau Ballet
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-06-2015, 01:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 156
From what I have noticed, England for example, they tend to stick with marrying from noble families. The selection is a quite huge one. There are so many names and families they have plenty of choices. Sure is nice being a commoner. Really, if they married a common person a lot of scrutiny might happen on a limited amount of personal funds to deal with it. No one wants to see royals wed someone who was too poor to file a lawsuit to protect themselves from libel, defamation of character or even hire an attorney to deal with contracts or publicity if needed. They have great morals and values, the royals do, but anyone they got with before marriage in the dating phase would simply have to have enough money or enough money in their family not to have to eat the cost of being affiliated with the royals. Really, borrowing a lump sum off a date to defend yourself in a civil suit just isn't going to make for happy wedlock. Then, noble families are unlikely to turn on one another in a fit of baby pictures and yearbooks to media outlets. Perhaps it's not like that or even a reason, but, that is the way it seems, it just makes the most sense.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-06-2015, 02:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilia C. View Post
Or things change very, very slowly. Nowadays Dad may still ask all his questions, but in the end he has to accept your decision.

And somehow this slow social change goes for all social classes/groups; not just for royals and aristos. Imagine that 100 or 150 years ago a farmer's son wanted to wed the dairy maid. Daddy farmer would have had a mayor fit, because a daughter-in-law had to be a farmer's daughter with a couple of cows and a chest of linen as dowry, and the skills needed by a farmer's wife. The same goes for tradesmen, craftsmen, doctors or parson: they all looked for wives with the right dowry, the right family and business connections, and knowledge of the trade. A daughter of a baker would just know better how to lead a baker's household than the daughter of the smith. Besides the right father-in-law might improve your business connections, or your position within your guild. So craftsmen would arrange marriages within their own guild and tradesmen arranged their marriages within their own trade, if possible.

Nowadays women have their own jobs, they don't "marry" their professions anymore. That freed people to marry for love, and also led to a general disapproval of arranged marriages. A good development, imo.

There is a hitch for reigning royal houses, because there the partners still "marry their job". But then we now have the perception that a profession can be learned by (nearly) anyone and does not have to be inherited. If a farmers daughter can study architecture, then a shop keeper's daughter can learn how to represent her country as a Queen.

I put the "nearly" in brackets because I still believe that it needs some personal qualities and talents to learn certain things. Eg you need the brains to study medicine, and if you are highly intelligent but faint a the sight of blood - well, maybe better study something else.

This was a great post. If we look at today, we see that Dutchess Kate for example comes from a somewhat well to do family kind of making them nobility by financial definition and through family name the deeper the history you read. Which is important given the run in's with the press and lawsuits that followed which probably came out of her pocket to pursue. We are not talking the normal family with a usual couple million dollars between them all to hoard and help no one else in the family but themselves. Her family has a substantial amount of wealth and some family relation in positions that gives them a noble status. Not just like anyone else with the American dream status working, saving, owning a business. So the royals look for the kind of status her family has. Americans are sometimes wrapped up in what they know as the American dream, a lot have, but it isn't what the royals are after. They want nobility from their nook of the woods. So at first read you might think, oh, her family had regular jobs, but the deeper it goes you find out, oh, the rest of her fam is real to do and it is easy to understand why Duke William got with her. Yet if you didn't know, it was all like oh, he got with a commoner, but no, he didn't get with a commoner line. It makes sense he's with her. She isn't just about party supplies and fashion, she has work skills that are suitable for running a business.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-06-2015, 02:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!

Well it is odd, but there are people out there who might cry and ask why did he marry her because they have a perception of a skewed misfortune because he didn't give a chance to a wayward wretch to save or help her change for the better instead of marrying a well to do, not fathoming all that is involved in a royal wedlock behind the scenes instead traditionalizing it as if it were a fairy tale in hindsight in sheer ignorance, because of all the charity involvement associated. Sure it might cross everyone's mind with a why not and wouldn't it be beautiful if he turned a homeless person into a princess or changed a miscreant into a beautiful princess who ran a charity. Personally I think it would be a detriment, only because, when the media and benefactors got a hold of her they'd leave her a helpless emotional mess without a cent to defend or contribute. Well the question why couldn't she just work as a maid in the palace or something to support herself humbly and just be with him out of love. Because it is plain ridiculous and improper, nor would it suffice the monetary demand the legalities often impose. Or an orphan? Again, money is essential to have going into a relationship with one of them that a heavily borrowed on credit line will not suffice. Yes it is odd but these are real challenges some people deal with reaching out in efforts to just be saved, doted on, cared for by someone with power and prestige because of a need for wealth, safety, luxury and notoriety out of whatever hardships in life they have faced. The very people that might scare even you, don't always usually seem scary that might even seem normal, still don't have the money or the upraising to sit in front of a desk, not out of homelessness, education level or criminal record, but because of mental health or just plain ignorance. They can't help it, but can be helped, just not with a royal title, no matter how cruel it may seem. It just isn't fair to them no matter how beautiful it would be to the rest of the world. It's dog eat dog in a position like the royals give through wedlock. Look at what a spectacle Dutchess Kate is and it's such a great thing her family has and gave to her the endurance and education as a youth to help pull her through it. If she was homeless without a cent and had gotten with Duke William the media and benefactors would of ate her for lunch, but everyone else would of loved the love story. Can't please everyone they gotta do what's best for the country and royal family when they choose who they wed. Odd indeed. However common sense isn't odd even though not everyone has it.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:02 PM
eya eya is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: somewhere in middle, Greece
Posts: 984
I believe that the royals merries non royals because they want to show that they are close to their people
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbahlina View Post
From what I have noticed, England for example, they tend to stick with marrying from noble families. The selection is a quite huge one. There are so many names and families they have plenty of choices. Sure is nice being a commoner. Really, if they married a common person a lot of scrutiny might happen on a limited amount of personal funds to deal with it. No one wants to see royals wed someone who was too poor to file a lawsuit to protect themselves from libel, defamation of character or even hire an attorney to deal with contracts or publicity if needed. They have great morals and values, the royals do, but anyone they got with before marriage in the dating phase would simply have to have enough money or enough money in their family not to have to eat the cost of being affiliated with the royals. Really, borrowing a lump sum off a date to defend yourself in a civil suit just isn't going to make for happy wedlock. Then, noble families are unlikely to turn on one another in a fit of baby pictures and yearbooks to media outlets. Perhaps it's not like that or even a reason, but, that is the way it seems, it just makes the most sense.
The last bride or groom from a strictly "noble" family to marry into the British royal family was Diana, to the best of my knowledge. How much money a family may or may not have is a completely different matter.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:19 PM
eya eya is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: somewhere in middle, Greece
Posts: 984
I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Once again, this isn't how genetics works. If a trait is determined by only 1 gene and a person has the markers for both the dominant and recessive trait (Gg) and their spouse just has the recessive markers (gg) then their children each have a 50% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but they could or could not receive it - it is not a guarantee that 50% of their children will receive it. If both parents are Gg then the children have a 75% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but if either parent is GG then they have a 100% chance of receiving it.

Not all traits are determined by just one genetic marker though, so things become even harder to predict. Consider hair colour - that's determined by at least two markers, which is why there are so many different hair colours.

As for royals' DNA being mapped... I strongly doubt that their DNA has been well mapped. We know that some have had at least aspects of their DNA mapped in order to identify the remains of people (i.e. Prince Philip's DNA was used to determine the identity of the remains of the family of Nicholas II), but I strongly doubt there has been an extensive testing of any royal's DNA in order to determine what genetic diseases they have. Royals tend to be pretty private about things, particularly health, and I somehow doubt they'd allow for access to do that (even without cloning considerations).
Ahh, now, this post is somewhat interesting to me. Their DNA. Let's look at dna, it stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, basically it is a carrier of genetic information. Correct me if I am wrong. R.N.A. or ribonucleic acid is the expression and regulation of the "coding" and "decoding" of said genes, or implications. Basically, I am not instructing you to do this, some water add a drop of cooking oil, heat it up, then a drop of some dish soap and the oil kind of disperses from the top when the soap is added. There, you have the only kind of sort of explanation you can see in action of what dna and rna do with each other without the furthermore explanation. As far as royal dna, the tail of it, length and what not, would be the only interest because of what was once thought of as junk dna can shed light on a great unspecified many things that, that one royal unearthed, his dna should suffice, but, I am guessing it is under tight lock and key. I before e except after c.. I may have a few misspelled words, excuse them please. Dna and disease, now cancer, it's replication process, I learned a little dna in grade school and can tell you that as far as hair and eye color I don't give a so. It's all in the dna/rna tail that interests me. I do study the bigger diseases, so never mind me, if you please. p's and q's minded, so we shall see what we shall see. I do doubt it will be the royal dna we get a glimpse of. Yet at glance at the royal family tree and what I do in fact know, you gotta do your own history, I can't just tell you. What fun is that? ..as far as cloning, how simple that is and a marvelous advancement. No sense in sharing that furthermore. Prince Phillip's dna, let's see he is The Queen of England's husband in his 90's? At his age yeah that dna tail could be really quite a spectacle, really, possibly ideal for study for entertainment for learning, but, lo que sera sera, and his dna really isn't a matter for research nor should it be because the areas that'd have to be sampled just are not up for discussion. Nor would it be that lucrative to even ponder let alone sample, he's a royal. There is nothing in any of them that is going to cure any of them, or anyone else if they were ill. I don't honestly think any one of them could even donate to one another in the event a drastic dire need, nothing more than blood and that is a far stretch even given the possibility of medications they could be on, real secure even down to that. Gotta admire them. As far as the royal that was unearthed, the soil sample next to him perhaps 4 ft below has much more scientific value than he does. Respectfully. It's the dirt that was around and under that one that has had my interest more than the dna of any of them.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:33 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by eya View Post
I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.
Yes, that's true. I was just thinking more in terms of the Queen's children and grandchildren, particularly those who have official roles (I had to draw a line for myself somewhere, otherwise I'd be sitting here for ages, getting lost in all kinds of family trees ).
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-06-2015, 03:41 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,457
The smart royals marry successful people who have the smarts and leadership abilities to continue the family line. Inbreeding creates weak people. Grace Kelly was a gift from God for Monaco. She had all the qualities one could ask for. Several of the Kelly family were very successful in life. 8 Olympic medals by 3 different people, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a 3 time US national billards winner and she was an Academy Award winner. Her dad built a very successful brick business. Her cousin was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Her family understood politics and US presidents knew them personally. This became very useful when France was threatening to take over Monaco in the 60s. Today the Casiraghis are doing the same thing. Andrea is married to a multibillionaire whose Uncle is a very powerful businessman in New York. Pierre is soon to be the brother in law of John Elkmann, CEO of Fiat Chrysler. Even Gad Elmaleh is a self-made millionaire. The principalities are actually in better shape than the kingdoms. Monaco, Leichtenstein, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have the highest standards of living in the world. ( You could include Singapore. It's a democracy but the same family has run it for decades.) Titles don't mean much anymore. It's capitalism that rules the world. Money is power. The ruling families of the countries above don't have to beg the government for a paycheck. They can pretty much write their own check. The European Kingdoms pretend to have power but the monarchs are pretty much impotent.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
australia best outfit birth camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cornwall duke of cambridge fashion fashion poll felipe vi funeral germany hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince of wales princess beatrice princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary style princess mette-marit princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague tiara victoria wedding willem-alexander


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]