The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:10 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Eh... Monarchy is all about dignity, history ánd -of course- having a relevance to the nation.
Duc: excepting history, these can be earned. In fact, many of us quite enjoy watching the arc of a person learning dignity and earning relevance.

In general, you've been wonderfully persuasive here, let me say. You made me think.
__________________

__________________
What's next Prince George? Hang-gliding with the Dalai Lama in your weekend tea clothes? GQ Online, July 8, 2016
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:16 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,844
They are only special in the position they hold...not their 'lineage'. Seriously no one thinks (outside of die hard monarchists, of which there are fewer as time goes on) that who their parents are make them any better than the next person. It's how they conduct their life that counts...that's what makes the difference.

People look askance when anyone who comes from a life of privilege and acts like an idiot or squanders it....doesn't matter if it's a child of a wealthy businessman or a royal family.

People will always follow the DoC because of how she connects with people and is doing her job. Not because she's able to trace her direct line back to any royal bloodline....and really some of the kings had so many bastards it's no wonder there are so many people who can actually do this....but because they like her and they like the image she projects.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:22 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
[....] But the Bernadottes are parvenus, so to speak. Desiree Clary was a silk merchant's daughter. Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was a Marshall in Napoleon's army and a son of an lawyer from Pau, France. [....].
But.... exactly because the Bernadottes were eh.... to use your words.... parvenus, they started with a shrewd marriage policy, everything to uplift the "nouveau riche" royal family to a most undisputed standing and great respect and dignity. Until the current King changed the strict marriage policy of the House of Bernadotte, everything was aimed to maintain the dynastical status of the Royal House. Anyone who did not wish to comply with these rules, could go. That was all in the game. You could be a Prince of Sweden, having royal privileges, great wealth but only the sun goes up for free: in return you had to submit to strict rules.

Now it seems the current royals are submitted to nothing. Prince Carl Philip does not see any harm at all in his tattoed former semi-nude photo model and former real life soap star. Isn't it all HIS life? No... it is not. In the old game he was requested to go and have a happy life with his beautiful model. But not as a Prince of Sweden. The King would simply not allow. Period. But now all Kings seems to give in. That Philippe of Belgium and Guillaume of Luxembourg have married a noble probably also has to do with their own view on who should stand next to them. Who knows?

Prince Gustav zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg is compeletely free to marry his longtime companion Ms Carina Axelsson. Who will stop him from doing so? But hey.... there are consequences connected to that choice.... he is aware of that and it is up to him to accept these or follow his heart and bear eventual consequences. What I miss is that the Sweden's future Queen can marry the guy who helped her with her dumbells, the then future King of the Netherlands could marry the daughter of a collaborator in a war-criminal military junta, the future King of Spain simply wished to marry that beautiful lady whom told him and the Spaniards the news. There are no consequences anymore. Stamp on your feet, threat with a constitutional crisis and the parents will give in...

Now they have them. The Argentine lady. Hoppa! Buying villa's and speedboats, Gucci here, Prada there, seven vacations a year. Willem-Alexander has what he wants. His jet set lifestyle with his glamorous and so "un-Dutch" Queen. So diametrically different from his forebearers on the throne. Anwyway... we will see how the monarchies will develop. If Princess Catharina-Amalia marries Mr Jansen-from-next-door in Utrecht, the very real core and fundamental question will pop up what their child, a Jansen, eh... no, a Van Amsberg, eh... no, the name is "Van Oranje-Nassau" please... still has which defines her as a most royalborn person, for whom the National Anthem will be played, the regimental standards will bow down and Ladies-of-the-Court will go down their knees.... "Your Royal Highness...." Everyone feels in his/her bones that this is a very existential point. Period. But tja... political correctness.... Pffff....

Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: N/A, France
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
They are only special in the position they hold...not their 'lineage'. Seriously no one thinks (outside of die hard monarchists, of which there are fewer as time goes on) that who their parents are make them any better than the next person. It's how they conduct their life that counts...that's what makes the difference.

People look askance when anyone who comes from a life of privilege and acts like an idiot or squanders it....doesn't matter if it's a child of a wealthy businessman or a royal family.

People will always follow the DoC because of how she connects with people and is doing her job. Not because she's able to trace her direct line back to any royal bloodline....and really some of the kings had so many bastards it's no wonder there are so many people who can actually do this....but because they like her and they like the image she projects.


LaRae
It is not a matter of being a better person. I have met a few aristocrats in my life. Some of them are people I do not count as friends as they are everything I don't like in people and they actually think they are marvellous for their name begins with or includes one (or more) "de" and their parents and grands-parents had some money. Other are marvellous people I am glad to know and who have humans qualities I value, and what makes me being their friend is not special to them as my other friends have it.

But if it was only the way royals are conducting their lives that would make them special, why don't have monarchies a regular competition to allow every citizens with qualities to compete for becoming the next generation of royals? It would make very little difference with several republican countries with republican dynasties (and I count my own country in these ones).

Royal are not better persons than you and me. They are different with you and me for they are born in a different family. That does not make them better. That gives them better opportunities in life, for sure. That puts them into position to show their skills and inner gifts. That puts them into a difficult position if they don't feel relational. Being born a royal won't even led them straight in Paradise after their death whatever they may have done in their life. It gives privileges, advantages, a position, burdens, and happily royal can choose to lead a royal life or not. The difference between them and me is not bigger. It still is a difference.
Two people being different does not imply one is better than the other. But it looks as if our times fear at the utmost the main idea of people being different one from another.

(And if you ask me, I wouldn't like at all being a royal. It would be to much of a burden.)
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:34 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,844
Duc ....Just goes to point out that not even the royals believe their own press.......so why shouldn't they marry anyone they like?



LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:40 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancia View Post
It is not a matter of being a better person. I have met a few aristocrats in my life. Some of them are people I do not count as friends as they are everything I don't like in people and they actually think they are marvellous for their name begins with or includes one (or more) "de" and their parents and grands-parents had some money. Other are marvellous people I am glad to know and who have humans qualities I value, and what makes me being their friend is not special to them as my other friends have it.

But if it was only the way royals are conducting their lives that would make them special, why don't have monarchies a regular competition to allow every citizens with qualities to compete for becoming the next generation of royals? It would make very little difference with several republican countries with republican dynasties (and I count my own country in these ones).

Royal are not better persons than you and me. They are different with you and me for they are born in a different family. That does not make them better. That gives them better opportunities in life, for sure. That puts them into position to show their skills and inner gifts. That puts them into a difficult position if they don't feel relational. Being born a royal won't even led them straight in Paradise after their death whatever they may have done in their life. It gives privileges, advantages, a position, burdens, and happily royal can choose to lead a royal life or not. The difference between them and me is not bigger. It still is a difference. But it looks as if our times fear at utmost the main idea of people being different one from another.

(And if you ask me, I wouldn't like at all being a royal. It would be to much of a burden.)
Well in a sense they are having a contest...they bring in 'non-royals' via marriage. No one is fighting it out ala The Hunger Games ...but when the royals are picking their spouses amongst the masses there is some informal competition there.

No, in general I wouldn't want to be a royal either, in some families (some have a lot more interest than others) it would be a nightmare. Others it might not be too bad. Still...the more you are given the more is expected.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 06-16-2015, 05:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
While I think that most of the married-in, former commoner members of royal families are doing a great job, I do take Duc_et_Pair's point. In order to be successful long term a monarchy must have a function that can't easily be replicated by either elected government officials or celebrities. It has to be seen as unique. One of the ways royal families have done this in the past is by maintaining a sense of separation from their non-royal subjects, (including in who they were able to marry). Once the sense of exclusivity and mystery is gone it becomes easier for people to think about monarchy logically, and that's the beginning of the end, IMO, because monarchy actually doesn't make much sense in modern life.

A few coments are in order.

First, support for the monarchy in modern European countries does not come from a special reverence to the royal family or their "pedigree", nor does it come from a belief that the monarch is entitled to his/her position by divine right. Instead, people and especially politicians support the monarchy because the system works well. It provides a clear separation between the partisan government and the non-partisan ceremonial role of head of state, and it ensures stability by highlighting the continuity of the state above the transient nature of party politics. Changing to a republican form of government is clearly not worth the risk in countries like Denmark, Britain, Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands for example.

Second, in European monarchies at least, the law vests the royal succession in the legitimate descendants of a particular family or of a particular person. People who marry into those families are vetted, usually by the monarch together with the government or the parliament depending on the country. If the government and/or parliament do not consent to a royal marriage, the person who is getting married is excluded from the succession line along with all his/her descendants. If, on the other hand, the marriage is approved and is legal, the succession rights of any descendants of that union are ensured by law, irrespective of the background of the consort. There is no legal basis to say then that the "pedigree" of one's mother or father either boosts or lowers one's claim to the throne or place in the line of succession provided that the person in question was born in a valid royal marriage.


Third, most people don't really care nowadays if a royal consort is a commoner or a member of the nobility. What matters is that, after the marriage, he/she performs his/her official duties well and commit his/her life to public service, which is what is now expected from the royals. I can't possibly imagine that politicians will be" less inclined to fund the royal family" because royals are now marrying commoners, nor do I believe voters will be less inclined to support the monarchy for the same reason. There is actually no statistical or factual evidence that I know of which supports that claim.

Finally, foreign observers who do not live in countries that are monarchies, especially Americans, need to understand that, when one talks about state funding of royal families, most of it is actually state funding of the office of head of state (not unlike funding a president) , security, and support for official duties carried out by other members of the royal house such as the monarch's consort and the heir apparent (family members who do not carry out official duties are generally not funded). The "luxury" associated with monarchies is mostly either the royal family's private wealth (like private jewel collections) or state assets that are at the disposal of the RF to perform their duties of ceremonial representation of the state. Many of those state assets BTW, such as royal palaces, art, regalia, or certain pieces of jewelley, were actually transferred in the past from private ownership of the RF to the state in exchange for tax exemptions or other similar deals.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 06-16-2015, 06:05 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 17,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post

Now they have them. The Argentine lady. Hoppa! Buying villa's and speedboats, Gucci here, Prada there, seven vacations a year. Willem-Alexander has what he wants. His jet set lifestyle with his glamorous and so "un-Dutch" Queen. So diametrically different from his forebearers on the throne. Anwyway... we will see how the monarchies will develop. If Princess Catharina-Amalia marries Mr Jansen-from-next-door in Utrecht, the very real core and fundamental question will pop up what their child, a Jansen, eh... no, a Van Amsberg, eh... no, the name is "Van Oranje-Nassau" please... still has which defines her as a most royalborn person, for whom the National Anthem will be played, the regimental standards will bow down and Ladies-of-the-Court will go down their knees.... "Your Royal Highness...." Everyone feels in his/her bones that this is a very existential point. Period. But tja... political correctness.... Pffff....

What utter nonsense. The royal WA bought these boats and villa's, the royal Bernhard zur Lippe bought a lot of flashy things that I am sure Juliana never had a hand in. The king of the Belgians bought a flashy helicopter -despite having a noble wife. And his wife does wear Armani. Numerous other royals and nobles are or were flashy. Likewise, there are many, many sophisticated untitled people who despite having the money do not spend it on luxery brands or flashy things. You are making a charicature out of the issue and out of people.

The logic that you are using is absurd and is offensive to anybody who is not noble or royal. You are basically calling all commoners -the vast, vast majority of the world population - vulgar, or potentially vulgar but lacking the funds to give in to their urges to buy speedboats and Gucci. I assume you are not noble or royal yourself? So would this (potential) vulgarity also count for you? Or just for the rest of us? Or just for those commoners who dare to marry a blue blood? Or just for Argentinians?

If Catharina-Amalia would marry a baron van Voorst tot Voorst, the same issue with the last name would occur as you described. Since passing the surname Orange-Nassau in the female line has been normal in The Netherlands since 1901, I am sure very few others will have problems in using the correct last name for the RF though.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 06-16-2015, 06:26 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 8,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancia View Post
Muhler, thanks for explaining but I still don't get your point.

If monarchy and a royal family is what defines a country, does that mean that the countrymen don't have anything in common more than having the same monarch as head of state? What is the point being a country if the only thing that stands the country united is its royal family? Surely Danes have more in common - an history, a culture, a language - than being all Margrethe II's subjects.

You also wrote : "An impressive pedigree does not make you more suitable for the role as royal. "
Indeed, but royal are made royals by their pedigree or a wedding with someone who has a pedigree. I agree that a head of state has to earn respect and he/she can't allow himself/herself to be lazy and dictatorial. But then, a royal who has deserved the respect he earned is a royal only for he or his/her spouse has been born into a special family and has a pedigree, an history, more notorious ancestors. I don't deny at all the danish people do highly respect queen Margrethe II, but her and all her royal fellows wouldn't have even been in position to have to earn respect as a crown princess first and a queen then had she not been into a family with a special position and a special lineage. That she, as every modern royal, has to work hard to keep her position, will never obliterate that they are who they are for something they did nothing, i.e. being born in a special family.

A Margrethe Andersen, born 16th april 1940 in Copenhagen, may be a nice lady, worth knowing, dedicated to her work, her family and the poors asking her parish for help, she may have all the qualities queen Margrethe does have, she still differs from queen Margrethe II by being born into a commoner family and not having ever been in position to access the danish throne. A Margrethe Andersen may have deserved respect from her fellow countrymen as much as queen Margrethe II, she will never be watched by a whole country each and every New Year Eve, and all the difference is made by her or her spouse's lineage. That is why royals are special. It does not mean they can slack and enjoy taking advantage on the taxpayer's money. But that is the reality : their birth or the birth of their spouse has given them a special position. That goes with hereditary monarchy.

Great points.

Of course we have more in common than merely the monarchy. However keep in mind that we Danes are a tribe, so the leading family of our tribe is important. That family has to be an integral part of the tribe.
It's not someone who live in a palace far away or who ride past once in a while. The royal family lives, so to speak, within our village. Physically interacting with us on a day to day basis. The distance between us and them is not far, because that's how it works within a tribe or a village.
That means we see them up close, and they see us up close. We know them, literally. And that means we respect them and show respect and close our eyes for some of the mistakes they sometimes make and close ranks around them when members of other tribes dare to criticize them.
But... But if they don't interact with the tribe, if they become aloof, if they become too elitist they sign themselves out. - I live in a village in the real world, you are either a part of the community, or you are not.

That's why personality matters before pedigree. Because we, the tribe, know perfectly well who you are, we know perfectly well about your background.

On top of that our royals have been wise (IMO) enough to almost always having chosen an outsider as consort. That means our new "daughter-in-law" is welcomed by the tribe. And we will get to know her, oh yes! If she assimilates and work for us and show her loyalty for the tribe, we will give her protection, acceptance, respect, loyalty and comfort in return. If she fails, she will remain an outsider. (Just see how PH did. he has only recently been tolerated rather than accepted by the tribe).
That means that it is the personality and the character that matters. No pedigree, however impressive it may be, will help her, if the tribe doesn't accept her.

This I believe is the best way to really understand how a monarchy works, at least in a small nation.

Then there is the institution of monarchy, the first family so to speak.
It works very much because the life of a royal belongs to the state from birth to death. That means life long dedication to your country, because there really isn't much else you can do. And you might just as well try and do your best, because it won't get better and you'll get a lot of heat if you don't. Also, most don't want to let their family (and tribe) down.
You look at the portraits of your predecessors, that must be pretty daunting! So you'd better do your very best not to fail them and the institution they represented.
It's an institution that has been around for a long time and that creates a lot of inertia and it leaves behind a large cultural and historical wake. Something that has become deeply rooted in the fabric of a nation.

What are the alternatives?
An elected head of state. Sitting for determined period and often defined by the person. To be replaced by someone and sometimes something completely new. Fine, but less deeply rooted.
Also as QMII obeserved, if she had been elected she would always be aware that there would be some who hadn't voted for her. She isn't elected, so that's it.
A celebrity or a celeb-family as a kind of pseudo-royals? Yeah, but will it work for generatio after generation? Not to mention that inevitable oblivion or unpopularity awaits practically all celebs.

But let's return to pedigree for a while.
If we were to maintain the monarchies on the condition that the pedigree is right, then we ought to abolish them IMO.
Firstly because pedigree is no guarantee for success. Look at Princess Diana. First class pedigree, marriage was a disaster. - For all sorts of reason of course, but one of them no doubt being that she did not want to accept that her marriage was primarily for dynastic reasons. That her job was to give birth to heirs, smile and turn a blind eye to the fact that her husband wasn't genuinely in love with her.
Forgive me if I sound naive, but I believe royals have the right to at least try and be happy as well. To marry for love and take their chances like the rest of us. Because marriage is hard work!

Secondly, are we to demand of a crownprince/ss that he/she cannot marry the one he loves? Not because she/he is not qualified, not because there is something wrong with her character, not because she has an unfortunate past - but because her pedigree simply isn't exclusive enough?!?

Well, we would see a multitude of otherwise prime royal material standing in line to opt out! Who would remain? Those who are lucky enough to fall in love with a noble person with just the right bloodline and the less suitable... Those we probably really wouldn't have as first choice anyway. The snobs, the indifferent, the ambitious (I wanna be king regardless) and the less endowed.
Hurrah, eh? But they would all have an impressive pedigree...

We are of course all a result of our environment. Margrethe Andersen may never have appeard on TV, but she might have been happy as an archeologist and perhaps met an artistic Frenchman. Had two sons, one of whom married an Australian and settled in Sydney with their four children.
But QMII was born royal, so for her Destiny Oblige.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 06-17-2015, 01:46 AM
eya eya is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: somewhere in middle, Greece
Posts: 4,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricarda View Post
Stephanie is a bad example IMO because she might be a nice person but she doesn't have what it needs to become a great representative of her country. No personality, no elegance, no ability to really connect with people. I don't see her adding much to the popularity of the LRF (but on the other hand she probably will never be a disgrace either). Her m-i-l, the commoner Maria Teresa, was a much better choice.

IMO Mathilde of Belgium isn't so popular because of her noble family but because of her personality. In this case everything fitted together perfectly. She has what it needs, and the family is just a bonus.

I think that this thought is outdated.
In Spain we saw the people demanding that a born princess (the offspring of a union between 2 royal families actually) should be treated the same like everybody else. And in order to survive the institution had to go along with it.
Stephanie is a bad example? She don't have personality ,elegance,ability? Are you serious? How do you know that? Is married only 2.5 years . Mathilde 15 years and don't have to say about Maria Teresa. How can compare this?
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 06-19-2015, 02:21 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Maurice, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
What?!?

I don't know about you. But I prefer a system where people bow because they want to, because they genuinely respect the people who has a position within an institution that means something to them.

In my eyes, you salute the rank, not the man. The man however has to earn your respect. The same thing with monarchies.



The butcher's daughter you suggest somewhat contemptuously. Why not? If she is qualified, if she is respectable, if she is made of the right stuff.
A dynasty has to start somewhere.
Being a butcher is an honest trade, many a noble family started from a much less honorable beginning.
I'll turn it around: Why should I bow to someone who earns his position due to an ancestor being a successful robber baron? While my ancestors were say honest hardworking peasants.

No, it's not the pedigree that matters, it's the institution you represent and the person you are.
Clipped some of the quote. But, Bravo! And, Brava! Reading some posts, but not all, has made me so angry. This is one that has calmed me down some.

And, no, nothing I'm saying is being "politically correct". I'm speaking my own feelings, and I'm the only one who has the right to say what I truly feel.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 06-19-2015, 03:33 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,541
I was in the Netherlands two weeks ago and during the Dinner a Dutchman said; "Zonder Maxima is Willem Alexander niets "
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 06-19-2015, 03:43 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,844
Translation?


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 06-19-2015, 03:46 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 17,515


Without Maxima, WA is nothing.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 06-19-2015, 03:54 PM
eya eya is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: somewhere in middle, Greece
Posts: 4,527
Is very good if duch people thinking like this. After all Maxima is their Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 06-19-2015, 03:57 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,844
Ah got it...thanks!


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 06-19-2015, 04:17 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by eya View Post
Is very good if duch people thinking like this. After all Maxima is their Queen.
Well...yeah... but the thing is that WA is the King and he is one descending from the by some so revered "royal bloodline", so it's not necessarily a flattering remark for the DRF.
Reality is in the DRF in recent years, the "commoners" are relatively popular compared to the born royals (the reigning monarch often is somewhere in the top positions of popularity, but commoners like Q.Maxima, P.Claus (now deceased) and Mr. Pieter van Vollenhoven scored very well in the polls)
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 06-19-2015, 04:23 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by maria-olivia View Post
I was in the Netherlands two weeks ago and during the Dinner a Dutchman said; "Zonder Maxima is Willem Alexander niets "
That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. We can turn it around: without Willem-Alexander Máxima would have been nothing. No one would ever have heard from her. She would not have paraded around with the most stunning historic jewels, waving in a Golden State Carriage, opening hospitals with her name or having all military at a battleship immediately jump in a right formation to salute her. E-ve-ry-thing of the most extraordinary life she has since 2001, she owns exactly to a certain man with the name Willem-Alexander...
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-19-2015, 04:37 PM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,094
Well....i wouldn't call it nonsense... much of WA's popularity with the "common folk" in the Netherlands is more related to Maxima than to his own activities...
Please note that I'm not talking here about the avid royalista's and general "connaisseurs" of the monarchy, but with the average person in the street, W-A is just not very "visible" (for lack of a better word)

my opinion of course (but based on what i experience in my own environment of people who are not really bothered about the monarchy)
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 06-19-2015, 05:25 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
Well...yeah... but the thing is that WA is the King and he is one descending from the by some so revered "royal bloodline", so it's not necessarily a flattering remark for the DRF.
Reality is in the DRF in recent years, the "commoners" are relatively popular compared to the born royals (the reigning monarch often is somewhere in the top positions of popularity, but commoners like Q.Maxima, P.Claus (now deceased) and Mr. Pieter van Vollenhoven scored very well in the polls)
Prince Claus was no commoner. When we look to Willem-Alexander's great-grandparents, then all of them, one for one, are in the Adelsbuch including all their their descendance including Willem-Alexander and his brothers. Their "quarters" are full, as is the saying in heraldica.

All great-grandparents of Willem-Alexander, Friso and Constantijn:

Gabriel von Amsberg (1822-1899) (Nobility of the Grand-Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin)

Marie von Passow (1831-1904) (Nobility of the Grand-Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin)

Leopold Graf von Vieregge (1832-1893)

Agnes Freiin von Gutschmidt (1842-1942)

Julius Freiherr von dem Bussche-Haddenhausen (1827-1882)

Juliane von Salviati (1834-1892) (Nobility of the Kingdom of Prussia)

Eberhard Freiherr von dem Bussche-Ippenburg (1851-1937)

Barbara von Chelius (1856-1949) (Nobility of Grand-Duchy of Baden)

Ernst-Casimir Prinz von Lippe-Biesterfeld (1842-1904)

Karoline Gräfin von Wartensleben (1844-1905)

Aschwin Freiherr von Sierstorpff-Cramm (1846-1909)

Hedwig Freiin von Sierstorpff (1848-1900)

Friedrich-Franz II Herzog von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1823-1833)

Marie Prinzessin von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt (1850-1922)

Willem III van Oranje-Nassau, Koning der Nederlanden (1817-1890)

Emma Prinzessin von Waldeck und Pyrmont (1858-1934)
__________________

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marriage to Commoners in Denmark Maura724 Royal House of Denmark 16 06-12-2016 09:46 AM
What royals & nobles are in the ever discreet Haute Couture Club? CasiraghiTrio Royal Style File 57 12-26-2010 10:03 AM
Marriage between Royals and Commoners. Part 1: Current Rulers Ennyllorac Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs and Articles 12 11-11-2008 01:43 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best hat best outfit birth catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary evening dresses crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread danish royal family death duchess of cambridge fashion poll felipe vi grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander member introduction mette-marit national day norwegian royals opening of parliament picture of the week president nieto; state visit prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia maternity wear princess sofia pregnancy style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen mathilde queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal royal fashion spanish national day state visit sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge eveningwear the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


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 04:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises