"20 Hottest Young Royals" (2004) - E! and Forbes Documentary


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well to be fair to them the show was done with a specific audience in mind and that audience have a certain opinion of what royalty is. They only care about the parties, the cars, the palaces, the money and not about the facts. So that's what they gave them. I think if you are looking for a factual programme on royalty you're probably not going to find it on anything associated with E!.
 
That's true, although it's very bad PR, IMO, for monarchy as a system of government. In democracy too, of course, you have wealthy leaders. Of course, their wealth doesn't come from hundreds, sometimes thousands of years of family heirlooms like most royal families. I'm certain that presidential children get dressed in pricey clothes and I bet Gordon Brown's kids want for nothing.

Still, it's just very damaging to the image of monarchy to see shows like this that only glamorize, and portray today's young royals as simply flaunting their wealth without serving a purpose!
 
In Monaco Princess Caroline is official recongized as Princess of Hanover but in other nations it is curtsey.Most people recongize Caroline as Princess of Monaco because that is a ruling house and Hanover is not.I don't know why
Pierre was not on the list but Forbes is the one who chose the list and there
is nothing we can about it.That is the problem with the media and press they
did not do enough research on the people to get the information right.
 
were amedeo ad carl philip on that list? if not then they should be cuz wills looks like an old man next to them....
 
Yes, she is. All three of the Swedish royal kids are on the list. The Swedish royals do not have a fortune estimated at $7Billion. Most of what they have is owned by the government of Sweden. Their personal fortune is only a few million dollars and they live on their state allotments.

It's not a documentary as the people who commented on it are compensated for their participation. Also, the amount of mistakes in titles, names, personal wealth are too preposterous to be taken seriously.
 
Oh, I've just remembered the biggest thing that bugged me! When they were talking about Harry, they mentioned how he's third in line and will probably never see the throne because William's older. But as we all know, alot of recent kings and queens have been second sons or second children!

Three of George III's sons became kings, and the next monarch was the daughter of his fourth son. Who would have ever thought she would be queen! And Naturally Edward VII was the eldest son, but he thought for much of his childhood that his elder sister was going to be queen. And George V was a second son, as was George VI, who became king once his older brother abdicated. And the current queen is only so because of her uncle's childlessness and subsequent abdication. So there is a long history on Harry's side about someday becoming king. I'm sure it won't happen, but to say that there's no way he would is silly!

By the way, does the term "once and future king" bother anyone else? They refered to William as this, and I'd always thought that the term "once and future" was kind of stupid, because it implies that you've held the position before, somehow lost it, and are expected to take it again in the future? I don't know, it's always sounded so strange to me.
 
Last edited:
By the way, does the term "once and future king" bother anyone else? They refered to William as this, and I'd always thought that the term "once and future" was kind of stupid, because it implies that you've held the position before, somehow lost it, and are expected to take it again in the future? I don't know, it's always sounded so strange to me.
Not to mention "The Once and Future King" is a fantasy novel by T.H. White about King Arthur... :whistling:
 
The List also has CPss Victoria graduating from Yale vice attending for two years.
 
Not to mention "The Once and Future King" is a fantasy novel by T.H. White about King Arthur... :whistling:

If memory serves, "once and future" refers to Arthur being expected by prophecy ("once"), as prophecy in mythology often refers to some sort of Golden Age, and that he will be King again (future). It's all very Messianic.. read the King Arthur legends in light of Christian mythos and it all becomes pretty clear.
 
Shows like these are very snobbish don't you think?I think the "costs" are higher than they seem to make it look interesting.
 
Back
Top Bottom