![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Portal | Royal Articles | Royal Calendar | Register | FAQ | Members List | Royal Links | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
![]() |
|||||
| View Poll Results: Are Royal born princesses more accepted? | |||
| Yes |
|
147 | 69.67% |
| No |
|
64 | 30.33% |
| Voters: 211. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think another issue is that the public see royal born princesses growing up, they are a constant in the publics lives, whereas princesses who marry into the royal family are new and so all of their past is rehashed all at once. Royals who are born royal have their 'scandals' and public missteps either at a young age and so are forgiven as it is seen as- oh well they were only young, whereas for others it is seen all at once, and often in the context of being in their thirties when indiscretions are brought to the publics notice.
You are probably more likely to be more skeptical of someone new that someone you have 'known' your whole life/ their whole life. Hope at least some of that makes sense! |
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
I also voted yes.This doesn't mean that Mary and Maxima aren't popular!
|
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
In my opinion the none-born-royal princesses need a lot more time to adjust to their new lifestyle. It takes time the public to accept them.They aren't trained, neither familiar to royal protocol. Being styled Royal Highness or just Highness comes with the marriage. It's individual if they are popular or not. I personally prefer the traditional way royal to marry royal, but a fresh blood from a commoner is more than welcomed in any centuries' old dynasties.
__________________
Platinum69 |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think born princesses are much more accepted.
By press by people and by royal society. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
I def. think royal born princesses are more accepted, at least by the press and other royal circles. They are BLOOD royal and they will be royal until they die. If a commoner marries a royal, and then they divorce, she is no longer considered royal. At least not in many (royal) circles. Her royalty is based solely upon her husband. I think the public takes to the royal women who were not born royal because they can relate to them more. Let's face it, who can most women identify with, Pss Mary or Maxima or Pss Victoria or the Infantas? Mary, Maxima, MM, and the rest were once "like us" and got lucky and found their prince. But they started out pretty much like the rest of us. Victoria and other blood princesses were never like us. I don't know about the press treating blood princesses better. Look at how Princess Anne has been treated, and Princess Margaret. Even Beatrice & Eugenie face the critics about their clothing, their weight, etc. Hard to say. But given a choice, I'd rather be a princess in my own right than have to marry into it.
|
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
I voted "Yes"... I just think that Royal-born-Princesses are more accepted on the "first view".
Commoners have to show the people at first how they are like. After a while , I think, the Commoner-Princesses are accepted the same way as the Royal-born princesses... Of course, the press tries to find mistakes on the not-blue-blooded ... ...
__________________
|
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Altough Diana was an aristocrat she wasnt "royal" exactly, and none has been more accepted tan her. I believe is up to personality.
In Spain Letizia is more accepted than the infantas that some times are a bit boring. And to semisquare, however Letizia is extremly popular in latin america!. It reminds me of an american friend that told me durin the royal weddin of Spain "none cares what happens in Spain above the border" and I replied "Is more like americans dont care what happens in that part of the world that is not framed between mexico and canada" she laughed. What i am tryin to say is that it depends a lot where you live, who is considered popular, not always what is popular in the US is popular everywhere (like soccer) |
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
|
I voted no. I think it's the opposite today, actually.
|
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
|
I believe born princesses have "nothing to declare", there is no right to doubt about them (though still they are victims of gossip as well, think Victoria of Sweden) and that's why they are more accepted. They might be whatever the tabloids publish, but still they came out of a royal womb. Period.
But still, not-born princesses stand out more, because of the effort put into becoming one. Maxima, MM, Mary... i am no fan of any of the 3, but people LOVE them. So: RYB are more accepted, but Self Made Princesses are loved. |
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
I say that born princess are more acceted then those who are princesses by marriage because when your born royal your groomed to have those great princes qualties while those who are married have to learn and get the hang of being princess becauase their husband is a prince.
__________________
Take time to think before you do. Princess Kamorrisa de St.Cogo,Duchess van Coth Ind Savoy http://myspace.com/kamorrisa |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
of course, they are more accepted.
|
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know what I should vote for. Is the question who is more accepted by the public or by the high-society or by their family?
I don't know. I think it depends on the princess . . . |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What Is The Point Of The Gr Family? | sky | Greek Royal Family | 82 | 10-21-2004 02:26 PM |
| Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 | Julia | Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family | 76 | 10-14-2003 09:40 PM |
| Royal Toys | Mandy | Royal House of Norway | 6 | 06-13-2003 01:51 AM |