Which Royals Like Or Dislike Their Roles?

[Danielle]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Aren't Canadians 'Canucks' and Americans 'Yanks/Yankees?'

Princess Michael's remarks were considered racist because she told a waiter of African heritage whom she apparently didn't think was doing a good job that he should "go back to the colonies" and reminded him to some effect that she was a protector of the colony or something like that that reminded him of her Windsor/royal status. That is offensive and racist unto itself. Furthermore, she had no idea about his background to make such a judgement about him -- and who is she to judge him anyway?

I cannot believe that she said that. I'm in shock. That is so racist, disrespectful and rude. By the sound of her, she must do this kind of thing all of the time.

[sara1981]

what about Diana,Princess of Wales and Sophie,Countess of Wessex, Sarah,Duchess of York and Princess Anne?

many people thinks Princess Diana was Royals and Sophie Wessex also Royals too if you think about it!

Sara Boyce

[hillary_nugent]

Originally Posted by sara1981

what about Diana,Princess of Wales and Sophie,Countess of Wessex, Sarah,Duchess of York and Princess Anne?

many people thinks Princess Diana was Royals and Sophie Wessex also Royals too if you think about it!

Sara Boyce

But they are Royal...aren't they?

[Elsie]

I don't know if any single royal has from day one wished they were someone in a different circumstance. There is no doubting that there are perks to been royal, but I diffinitely know there are time when they became very aware that being royal is a big limitation to their lives.
Prince Charles said in an interview that it is horrific having everything planned for you. Your schooling, university, military career ect.
Princess Anne noted the same, Andrew and Edward too. It's just that they are pretty constrainted into what is 'allowed' or rather what is expected. Maybe they know they lack personal freedom - all decisions they make are made with others and consquences scutinised. It's not a life I envy. What if Anne wanted to go to university whould she ave been allowed. What if Charles didn't wanted to go to the Navy, he is the heir to the throne, he couldn't say no like Edward did? Do they have any control over their lives at all? Or is that control to be sort in choosing the right advisiors? Do non -British royals have a greater control of their lives?

[Australian]

You make very good points Elsie. Its not a life i would wish for at all. I wonder how the royals feel, its not as if they asked to be royal.

[Josefine]

has any royal said that they like thir role as royal

[betina]

The king of Sweden is very royal (but I dont like his comment about Victoria, that he would have been happyer if his son followed him as heir)

[lashinka2002]

Princess Anne - An example of someone who is very royal, but doesn't seem to like being royal.
She does her duty efficiently and does not attach herself to her work. It seems just like buisness to her. Even when she's visiting sick & impoverished children.
Princess Caroline of Monaco - Acts very royal but is actually not. Her mother was not born royal & her paternal grandmother was born out of wedlock to an actress. Married E-A and got a HRH out of it but he has no reigning house. She seems to want to elevate herself.
Not royal - Princess marie-chantal of Greece..oh pleeeasseee!!!!
Stephanie - when she wants to she can pull off being royal but its obvious its only been a burden to her

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by betina

The king of Sweden is very royal (but I dont like his comment about Victoria, that he would have been happyer if his son followed him as heir)

I don't want to start this discussion again (there are lots of post on the topic in the Swedish forum somewhere) - but the King actually never said that (at least not in the interview I know of, from the 21st century). What he said was the he thought it was very strange to change a law and then make it valid before it was written.

[capricorninin]

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess

I don't want to start this discussion again (there are lots of post on the topic in the Swedish forum somewhere) - but the King actually never said that (at least not in the interview I know of, from the 21st century). What he said was the he thought it was very strange to change a law and then make it valid before it was written.

I agree with you, it was not in the sense that he was against his daughter claimimg the throne but rather that in this generation, prince CP was already born a crownprince and therefore the new law should have come in effect for the next generation i.e for Carl Phillip's children. This is the way it was done for Norway, I believe. Though the law got changed before Haakon officially became Crown Prince, it came in effect only with Ingrid.