The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 06-22-2015, 11:37 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don't know, but I'd be surprised if she did. In fact, I don't think Charles speaks Welsh either. Keeping things in perspective though, only 20 % of population of Wales itself speaks Welsh as first language.

BTW, I know Charles got an A-Level in French at school with a grade C (not very stellar then), so I assume he must speak at least basic French . William's A-Levels were in geography , history of art and biology with grades A, B and C respectively, which makes him one of the best students in the Royal Family in recent times (compared e.g. to his father, brother and uncles), but far from academically gifted.

Also, on the topic of consorts, Camilla left school with O-levels only. In other words, she didn't even get a qualification that would have enabled her to apply to a university. Compared to Camilla, Kate's qualifications (a bachelor's degree in art history) are "outstanding".
Fwiw, the Prince of Wales speaks faultless French. When Diana died there was a story in Paris Match describing how he'd spent nearly an hour at the Paris hospital with the French surgeons and medical personnel who had struggled to save her life. He asked them for details about his dying ex-wife's final hours and thanked them for their efforts. The French doctors were very moved by his anguish, and by his ability to express himself so well in their language.

And when he and Camilla were received at the Elysee Palace by President and Mrs. Sarkozy during a State visit a while back, there was more delight in the French media about Charles beautiful, effortless French.

I think he also speaks German.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 06-23-2015, 04:06 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: -, Antarctica
Posts: 1,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Also, on the topic of consorts, Camilla left school with O-levels only. In other words, she didn't even get a qualification that would have enabled her to apply to a university. Compared to Camilla, Kate's qualifications (a bachelor's degree in art history) are "outstanding".
To compare Camilla and Kate when it comes to level of education is more of a question of generational issue than a educational issue. She was most likely not expected to continue studying, but to become a debutante and marry well, like most young women of her background in the late 1960:ies.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 06-23-2015, 05:39 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 18,597
This thread has been cleaned up an re-opened.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 05-14-2017, 03:38 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,872
You know what, I'm 2 years late but I have something thong to say: I think Duc has a point regarding the long term role of RFs. In the short term its all happy and marrying for love and a marriage that will actually last; but over the long long term people who look back 1
75-100yrs in the past and see that King WhatsaMaCallit VI had 3 generations of teachers, garbage men, and waitresses in his ancestry then people may question what is so royal about him.
On the other hand perhaps a lot of royal families would rather the slow erosion of the royalness of it all as opposed to the fast implosion of say marrying a Lady Diana Spencer who did more damage than Mette, Sophia, Maxima, Kate and her Uncle Gary combined.
Lastly, a few of these royals have eroded the mystique around themselves by having affairs and getting divorced.
I definitely understand the point Duc is making about erosion because of commoner marriages; I do think Sofia and Carl Phillip have especially lowered the bar.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 05-14-2017, 03:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by karima View Post
Hi all,

In the regards of your responses, can we fairly question the relevance of the Monarchy today?
If the monarchy were considered irrelevant in the countries that are still monarchies, then it would have been already abolished. I suppose the answer to your question should be straightforward then.
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 05-14-2017, 05:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
You know what, I'm 2 years late but I have something thong to say: I think Duc has a point regarding the long term role of RFs. In the short term its all happy and marrying for love and a marriage that will actually last; but over the long long term people who look back 1
75-100yrs in the past and see that King WhatsaMaCallit VI had 3 generations of teachers, garbage men, and waitresses in his ancestry then people may question what is so royal about him.
On the other hand perhaps a lot of royal families would rather the slow erosion of the royalness of it all as opposed to the fast implosion of say marrying a Lady Diana Spencer who did more damage than Mette, Sophia, Maxima, Kate and her Uncle Gary combined.
Lastly, a few of these royals have eroded the mystique around themselves by having affairs and getting divorced.
I definitely understand the point Duc is making about erosion because of commoner marriages; I do think Sofia and Carl Phillip have especially lowered the bar.
I truly do believe that these royals need to get it into their heads that the only reason they are where they are is because their ancestors always made sure to be the best in every possible area. They didn't disrespect their parents and they never made apologies for their ancestors. They were the most ruthless and did it on behalf of the nation, not on their own personal behalf. Not just honest work, but grunt work; the men married for brides who brought big bucks to the treasury and the women married to secure treaties and spread the royal line around the world to make sure that in the event of a revolution, that a family tie would ensure a safe welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 05-14-2017, 06:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,616
In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 05-14-2017, 06:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,071
Neither would I.

Royals need to find other ways of distinguishing themselves, to show WHY they are at the top and why they should remain there and have respect as their due.
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 05-14-2017, 06:36 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!
I think you've defined the definition of royal marriages in the past pretty well. Sometimes even, for the most part, they weren't marriages as we know them to be now but rather royal alliances and treaties.

Most likely too is that this practice of marriage between royals and aristocrats and the upper echelons that spawned the unwritten code that there was the marriage and then there were the discreet love affairs. The marriage was for the status and the titles and the land and the affairs of the heart for personal fulfillment. We've seen examples of this kind of thing even in the 20th century still.

With the changing social environment and the need for alliances and treaties left to the government, the old way of doing things no longer apply as bloodlines and marriage of "suitable" personages that build up a "pure" bloodline or whatever else was deemed proper in the older ages began to become irrelevant and people began to realize that royal, aristocratic, noble or commoner, they had the right to marry for love, happiness and self fulfillment with a partner they cared about.

Personally I think its a change for the better. A person may be entitled to be royal but its also important that they're realized as being human also like everyone else on the planet.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 05-14-2017, 07:14 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,880
Royal is just a made up designation, by the guy who had the biggest sword. Over the years for both good and bad the concept held in some places. That is their prerogative. But "royal" is just a farce. They are no better then the waitresses or garbage people mentioned above. Just a fancy designation they held for themselves, obtained as aforementioned.
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Royal is just a made up designation, by the guy who had the biggest sword. Over the years for both good and bad the concept held in some places. That is their prerogative. But "royal" is just a farce. They are no better then the waitresses or garbage people mentioned above. Just a fancy designation they held for themselves, obtained as aforementioned.

I agree.

For example, CP Victoria married her personal trainer, but the Bernadotte dynasty was founded by one of Napoleon's field marshals, who hadn't a drop of royal blood.
So actually she is no more royal than her husband is. So how could he be a poor choice?

There are probably many cases like that.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 05-14-2017, 09:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,071
I wonder how different things would be if royals actually accomplished something of substance that no one could claim their title bought for them. There is a lot out there where they can prove themselves and that is what they should do.
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 05-14-2017, 11:37 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
Royals need to find other ways of distinguishing themselves, to show WHY they are at the top and why they should remain there and have respect as their due.
It's somewhat of a pointless discussion as royalty comes out of a feudal system which we no longer have in play (for the most part). It is truly a vestige.

We continue to have a hierarchy of status/power but it is based on money and the control of capital. There are no feudal oaths of fealty (except in 'organized crime' - personal loyalty to a single individual is a throwback to feudalism). Capitalism does not have attendant upon it tips of the hat, nods of the head, or genuflections/curtsies. We would be aghast if any capitalist/corporatists demanded that of anyone. (Though please note that any organization that does have feudal overtones will indeed have those kinds of personal professions of loyalty, e.g. 'The Godfather').

Point being royalty does not have any 'respect that is their due'. Since the Enlightenment the game has been a bit different.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 05-15-2017, 01:41 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!
Unhappy marriages only applied when there were political alliances. When there was just money even if the alliance broke down, there tended to be a lot of widowers.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:21 AM
Bine221's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 1,431
During the last days I have seen some documentaries about the Romanovs as well as the Habsburgs - and in both documentaries the "deseases" (Habsburg Lips as well as Haemophilia) were addressed. Both as a result of not enough gene interchange.
This is what is a positive result of the long term role of reigning houses with "commoners".... to get a refresh of the gene-pool again.

Secord aspect..... the political alliances marriages.
Example Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria and Belgian Princess Stephanie - the lived completely different lives and finally hated each other. And this may have been one (of many) reason(s) that he finally committed suicide. Here a marriage of love between a Royal and a Commoner may help at least to obviate that a marriage may be wrong from the beginning. Also the fact, that a separation is possible today (unthinkable 100 years ago) may help preventing an eternal "marital feud" which also helps for a better bond between the RF and the people and a better reputation (pls see Charles & Diana and their war in the media).

So for the long term I see positive aspects for the wedding between commoners and members of the RF.

Bye Bine
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 05-15-2017, 04:07 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,071
I just think that 'suitable' should mainly be about mental and emotional stability and someone who gets it that they are supposed to support, not star in some kind of soap opera. Someone who gets it that they're supposed to put themselves at their spouse's service and that it's never going to be all about them. No future royal consort should go into this marriage thinking that they're the ones who should be nurtured and take center stage.

It's not nice, but it's how it is.
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 05-15-2017, 03:42 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
I just think that 'suitable' should mainly be about mental and emotional stability and someone who gets it that they are supposed to support, not star in some kind of soap opera. Someone who gets it that they're supposed to put themselves at their spouse's service and that it's never going to be all about them. No future royal consort should go into this marriage thinking that they're the ones who should be nurtured and take center stage.

It's not nice, but it's how it is.
Well, we know who we are talking about in recent history. A more 'unsuitable' bride (albeit with all the bloodlines and 'breeding') there never was as it turns out in that instance. I think now there is sharp eye to such unsuitability. Hard lesson, dearly paid for.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 05-15-2017, 04:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Well, we know who we are talking about in recent history. A more 'unsuitable' bride (albeit with all the bloodlines and 'breeding') there never was as it turns out in that instance. I think now there is sharp eye to such unsuitability. Hard lesson, dearly paid for.
The stark fact remains that problems in the marriage can happen no matter what "bloodline" or status or whether prince or pauper. That is what, to me, shows that "labels" on a person cannot and do not in any way, shape or form make them "suitable" for marriage to a royal.

Even a marriage sometimes that starts out with all the proper boxes checked off but still seems to be a marriage made because it seemed to be a "society fit" marriage doesn't assure long partnership and love. Example being the then Duke of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. She wasn't sure at all she wanted into the royal life of a Duchess and Bertie had to propose several times before she accepted him. No one could have known at the time they were destined to be King and Queen. She was his stability, his support system and a strong person for him to lean on.

A commoner such as Sarah, Sophie, Kate or anyone else for that matter may be just what the doctor ordered for a "royal" but not because of their status or any other external factor but because the couple fit together like peanut butter and jelly. Its not until after the marriage that the couple actually find out if they endure or if that sandwich turns to oil and vinegar as time passes.

When it comes to marriage between *anybody*, its the experience of the marriage itself that is the prime test of its endurance. The two people in the marriage determine its success as interacting human beings. The externals such as what we deem to be "suitable" for marriage to a royal amount to one hill of magic jumping beans when the cards are all laid out on the table.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:08 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I agree.

So actually she is no more royal than her husband is. So how could he be a poor choice?

There are probably many cases like that.
JC Bernadotte was indeed a soldier, of no particular "good family".. but his family marred into the royal families of Europe and so technically yes she is "more royal" than her husband.
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 07-16-2017, 06:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
A commoner such as Sarah, Sophie, Kate or anyone else for that matter may be just what the doctor ordered for a "royal" but not because of their status or any other external factor but because the couple fit together like peanut butter and jelly. Its not until after the marriage that the couple actually find out if they endure or if that sandwich turns to oil and vinegar as time passes.

When it comes to marriage between *anybody*, its the experience of the marriage itself that is the prime test of its endurance. The two people in the marriage determine its success as interacting human beings. The externals such as what we deem to be "suitable" for marriage to a royal amount to one hill of magic jumping beans when the cards are all laid out on the table.
Its true that problems can arise in any marriage, between couples that adored each other or hardly knew each other. Or where one of them was (As Blackadder puts it) a footman and the other was the Duchess of Whereever...
but the general idea was that (a) someone close in rank to the RF, whether another royal or someone upper class, would know the score of Royal life better and would therefore fit in better..and (b) would be less open to the charge that they had married out of ambition, if they were the one of lower rank.
As people have said, it doesn't always work. Diana was "well bred", her family were couriters, and she clearly "didn't know the score" that well, and she and Charles were oil and water.
Kate is middle class, but she and Will have been lucky enough to live in an age, where they were able in spite of massive media intrusion, to spend a lot of time together, to get to know each other realy well before they committed..
__________________

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
affair best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duke of cambridge dutch earthquakes europe fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín kate king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar prince philip princessanne princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess margaretha of luxembourg princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia spanish jewels state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises