Are Royal born princesses more accepted?

[Josefine]

I think royal-born princesses are more accepted, but the princesses who marry into a family are more popular despite the heavy criticism they face initally. I think part of the popularity is from the whole "fairy-tale" aspect of these women's lives and relationships with their princes, and the fact they were commoners (or at least not princesses) beforehand makes them more appealing in a way to the public.

that is a very good point these is a difference in more accepted and more popular

 

[royal005]

I feel that royals should marry royals because I find it difficult to accepted say a person who is on the same level as me. But if your prove to people that your more than just the title I feel that you will be more accepted and popular, and even become more idolised than a member of a royal house.

 

[wanderer]

I vote yes, my reasons are the same as other members who voted 'yes'.

 

[tiaraprin]

I said no because of Letizia and Mary who, as you said, are very popular. Diana wasn't a commoner but she wasn't princess born either and everyone loved (and loves) her.

I don't know if the question has been asked and answered but has there ever been a situation where a princess born was not accepted or very unpopular?

Yes there are. Princess Alix of Hesse und bei Rhine when she married Tsar Nicholas II. She was never liked, nor accepted.

 

[Warren]

Empress Frederick

Yes there are. Princess Alix of Hesse und bei Rhine when she married Tsar Nicholas II. She was never liked, nor accepted.

Not forgetting Vicky, Empress Frederick, Queen Victoria's eldest daughter who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm. She disliked the Prussian Court, Prussian militarism, and the Prussian "attitude", and didn't hold back letting people know. Unsurprisingly, the Prussians never quite took to her.
.

 

[Layla1971]

I voted yes.
I don't think Marie-Chantal of Greece is at all liked by the Greek people but then neither is the family she married into.

She may have been born a commoner but since the family is not liked in Greece, how do we know what the public thinks of her in particular?

Does anyone know if she is liked by the royal circles in Europe?

It would be interesting to know what they really think of her, and whether her birth has anything to do with it.

 

[tiaraprin]

Henrietta Maria, Consort to Charles I of England

Not forgetting Vicky, Empress Frederick, Queen Victoria's eldest daughter who was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm. She disliked the Prussian Court, Prussian militarism, and the Prussian "attitude", and didn't hold back letting people know. Unsurprisingly, the Prussians never quite took to her.
.

Let us also remember Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I. A Catholic Princess from France, Henrietta refused to change her religion and was charged by the Pope to bring England back to the Catholic fold. She had an elaborate private chapel built for her mass services.

She tried to convert all her children to Catholicism and broke with her son Henry because he wouldn't convert under his brother Charles' orders. Henry died without ever seeing his mother again. She refused to see him, even when he was on his deathbed.

She meddled quite extensively in foreign affairs also. The people never liked or accepted her either. She kept meddling when her son, Charles II came back in 1660!

 

[Piewi]

I voted yes. i think it´s a matter of trustworth.
We don´t know almost nothing about non-born-royal.We don´t know what intentions they have. They need to show why they´ll be the future Queen. They´re the most populars, but the most criticize too.
While we´ve seen born-royal princess since they birth. They are raised as royals, know the protocol, how being a royal, the press. We know lots of things about hers. Most of them aren´t popular but they´re accepted.

 

[soCal girl]

I do believe royal-born princesses are cut more slack in many ways. They are more accepted and most of the time, they are not chased as much by the photographers than a new princess. I think the popularity situation will be different in Sweden though with Victoria being the Crownprincess. IF she marries Daniel, I don't think a fairytale image will come to mind...I think Carl Philip's future wife (hopefully Emma) will be the one who has to deal with all the fairytale princess stuff but probably not as big as Mary and Letizia.

 

[Josefine]

wow there seems to be a slam dunk in this poll

 

[star84]

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!

 

[Beatrice]

I also voted yes.This doesn't mean that Mary and Maxima aren't popular!

 

[platinum69]

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.

 

[HRH Mims]

I think born princesses are much more accepted.
By press by people and by royal society.

 

[Bella]

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.

 

[Her_Majesty]

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 ...
...

 

[avrilo]

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)

 

[Tinika]

I voted no. I think it's the opposite today, actually.

 

[Verde Esmeralda]

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.

 

[Next Star]

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.

 

[Vevi]

of course, they are more accepted.

 

[coco]

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 . . .

 

[Turkish Delight]

I think yes. Royal born Princesses are more accepted.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think royal born princess have the upper hand in protocol and ettiquette but i believe that non-royal born princess are more liked, they have the air of naturalism. They were once ordinary people and in my eyes that gives me a sense of hope for myself.
x

 

[4Pam]

I voted yes that royal born princess are more accepted than someone who marries into the royal family. Women like Maxima, Mary, Marie, Mette-Merit, Rania and Letizia have proven themselves to their country that, yes- I wasn't born into this but I do love the future king and I can/will do my best to represent this country in the best that I can. They're a great inspiration to women around the world as well

 

[orb and sceptre]

I actually think it's quite the opposite, at least on the rare occasions in which Royals are in the American press.

Because of the love/hate relationship wth the concept of royalty, it's easy for born royals to automatically come off as arrogant and a sign of a backward past; however, they are often also seen as having a natural air of grace and beauty, especially young royals. It also works in the favor of young royals that so many other public figures today lack class and discretion.

But when a non-royal marries into a royal family, I've noticed that all sorts of people take a Cinderella-style attitude towards them; seeing them as a down to earth, everyday type who worked against the odds to become a respectable member of a family that probably didn't want them there. I haven't seen or heard much about the general attitude towards Crown Princess Victoria's future husband, but I know that such is the case with the commoner Crown Princesses.

So, overall, I think it's pretty even. For just as many people that question a commoner's motives or criticize their actions, there are people commending their bravery on working against unique obstacles for true love; and whilst some consider royals to be outdated, just as many admire their beauty and charms.

 

[Jacknch]

This is an interesting question but the answer is not at all simple! I voted No initially because several of the blood-royal princesses have not in the past appeared to be very popular - Princess Anne is highly regarded because of her hard work, but she is not overly popular or "accepted" bacuse she apparently lacks the glamour, style and friendliness of other princesses - Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are often critised for their lack of style and their "Windsor" looks - Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has in the past been thought of as "boring" compared with other Crown Princesses (which has been changing recently since her engagement and her popularity and the interest taken in her will grow ever more intensly the closer we get to her wedding).

On the other hand, the new batch of Crown princesses in recent years who married into royalty will have to go through a number of changes in public opinion - from the initial engagement and wedding where everyone loves them to bits, to a sudden round of critisism of their fashion and interests which dies down eventually once they have been a Crown Princess for several years.

It seems that popularity and acceptance varies and awful lot between Princesses (both royal born and "commoner" born) and it is not surprising because we royal watchers are quite fickle with our favourites! A year ago we were desperate for Crown Princess Victoria to marry and there seemed to be much critisism for her lack of getting engaged. We thought her fashion a little boring or conservative. Suddenly, because she is going to provide us with an amazing wedding next year she can do no wrong and will be the most popular royal on TRF on the day of her wedding. Her fashion sense and style seem to have changed and she seems much happier and relaxed following her engagement and so again the popularity increases.

So maybe the answer is that whether you are a royal-born princess or a princess by marriage, your general popularity over the years will much depend on your conduct in puplic life, your hard work, your style as well as making sure you do enough to keep the public interested!

 

[Baroness Squigy]

Reading on this and other boards I´ve wondered one thing: Are princesses, who are daughters of sovereigns (or crown prince(ss)) more accepted than commoners, who married a prince, and who became princess, among Royal watchers?
I notice, that new princesses like Letizia and Mary are extremly popular, but IMO they also have to face harder criticism than e.g Märtha Louise, Victoria, Madeleine, Christina or Elena.

Well it depends. If you mean are they more accepted by the people, I'd say no. The people love it when they see somebody from common birth become a Princess, it inspires them. If you mean Royalty, THEN I'd have to say yes. I think they like to keep the bloodlines pure. But this is just my opinion.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . I voted No initially because several of the blood-royal princesses have not in the past appeared to be very popular - Princess Anne is highly regarded because of her hard work, but she is not overly popular or "accepted" bacuse she apparently lacks the glamour, style and friendliness of other princesses

I think Anne was initially, and by initially I mean in her teens, a little terse (OK she inherited her father's charm with journalists) but as the years went by we all became so proud of her superb horsemanship, something she earned for herself. No one gave it to her and no one can take it from her. Suddenly the media loved her because she was such an excellent sportswoman she was selected to represented country and that initial media warm fuzzy spilled over to her years of diligent royal duties, so much so that when her mother bestowed the title "Princess Royal" on her no one said she didn't deserve it, just speculated on what took so long. As to glamour, well on occasion but she is an accomplished racontuer and canhold her own in any royal or political situation.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are often critised for their lack of style and their "Windsor" looks.

As to the York girls, well everyone hits a few speed bumps on the road to life. However, if the media is still harassing them about their weight or fashion ten years from now then it will really be a problem.

Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has in the past been thought of as "boring" compared with other Crown Princesses (which has been changing recently since her engagement and her popularity and the interest taken in her will grow ever more intensly the closer we get to her wedding).

I think Victoria is a unique case. Not because she is the only born Crown Princess, but because initially she wasn't the heir and then all of a sudden she was. The King was known to have not wanted the law change to have been retroactive. His preference was ignored and I think that made for a very tense few years for Victoria. Everyone wants to be loved and accepted by their father and in this Victoria is just like everyone else and I think her style of dress was the royal equivilent of the corporate women's power dressing style complete with no-nonsense ponytail was an attempt to be taken seriously by her countrymen and more especially, her father.

IMHO Victoria's engagement has given her permission to be, not just the crown princess, but also a Woman in love. While the revelation about her fiance's longstanding health condition has in part explained their incredibly long courtship, the engagement in itself has provided the golden opportunity to not just dress in a more feminine and romantic way but to smile and show her joy in life.

Lets face it, we all need a little romance in life and Victoria's impended marriage is the stuff of dreams in a dreary recession or depression era.

 

[susan alicia]

voted: no

Of the born princesses only Christian of Spain comes to mind as a real princess.

Of the non born: princesses: Mary of Denmark is very royal I think.

The rest that come to mind at this moment are somewhere in the middle and there are a few I just do not like