The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Prince Harry and Prince William

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1341  
Old 10-08-2008, 06:53 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Jo, I hope you're not rubbing the noses of the Saxe-Coburgs in the dynastic game, set and match triumph of the Oldenburgs!
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #1342  
Old 10-08-2008, 06:58 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 11,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
The House of Oldenburg in his different branches is the oldest ruling dynasty of Europe. Margrethe, queen of Denmark (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Mary Donaldson as a daughter-in-law. Olav, king of Norway (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Sonja Haraldson as his daughter-in-law. Sofia, queen of Spain (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Letizia Ortiz as her daughter-in-law. Constantine and Anne Marie, ex-king and ex-queen of Greece (both of the House of Oldenburg) have accepted Marie-Chantal Miller as their daughter-in-law. So why should Charles, future king of the UK (of the House of Oldenburg) not accept Catherine Middleton as his daughter-in-law?
Of course he would accept - but that this is not the point. The point is that what you have listed up there Jo - not complete by far - will be the downfall of monarchy in general in the very long term. If there is no difference any longer between then so-called royalty (ordinary people with titles and privileges) and the public, ordinary people without titles and privileges, what's the point in keeping an expensive Royal Family. The job they do can be done by any elected president who, as an extra advantage, can be thrown out if he or she doesn't perform up to the public's expectations. Royalty is about tradition, history, standing out, being special, not about ordinary people turning into HRH by marriage only. Fine feathers do not automatically make fine birds.
__________________

  #1343  
Old 10-08-2008, 07:32 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarrie View Post

For the 'blue blood' discussion, it shouldn't be taken as a literal sense. Blue blood means of distinguished discent. Now if for example as will probably happen in Sweden in the case of Crown Princess Victoria's children your grandmother was a translator, your father owns a gym and you marry a commoner then that would put you on a social standing equal to someone coming from a very rich family or upper middle class.
If Victoria marries Daniel and if her eldest child is inheriting, then Swedish people will most probably say: this child is the granddaughter of our beloved Queen Silvia and the heir of our beloved Queen Victoria and nothing else IMHO.

People here who argue with the "lessening of the Blood Royal" as a danger to the monarchy don't understand that it's not the Blood Royal who in reality interests the people (as the voters). Today's still ruling dynasties not only have their history and tradition, much more important is the fact that according to the constitution they in fact sit on top of a country's society. It doesn't matter that queen Silvia was born a commoner - what matters is that according to the constitution of Sweden her daughter is the Crown princess who will one day be the next queen.

Only those ex-ruling dynasties have a need to prove again and again that they are something special and not just people like you and me - which they are in their countries. That's why some branches of the Habsburgs eg are so much against the equality politics of their Head. Because of course it deminishes their prestige. But only because they do not longer rule. Once Mette-Marit became legally the Crown Princess of Norway and the mother of the future queen, she became a Royal in the sense of the Norwegian law.

And those who think that marriages to commoners endanger monarchies do IMHO not understand why there are still monarchies there. Becuase they are a political means to stability. Governments and parliaments of the European monarchies tend to work towards political stability. It's not their aim to have to fight to win elections with the aim towards constructing of a new constitution. They are all quite happy if the things stay as they are.
Thus they have no interest to select their Royals into first and second class Royals according to the bloodlines of these Royals. As I wrote before: the legitimate child of a king or queen regnant is a prince or a princess, no matter where the other parent came from. Legally so and in the eyes of society. And that is why the Royals lasted all those centuries: because they had the power and they ruled. Today the people have the power and the government rules but the people represented by their elected members of parliament decided on the constitution which still garantees the place of the Royals in the society. And for the absolute majority of the people a Royal is who the constitution and the law says is a Royal. The rules are there and most people have no problem with them.

They do have other problems, maybe the amount of money the state spends on the Royals and how much they do in their job. But certainly not a problem with the ancestors as long as the ancestor held the staus and position of a member of the Royal family in his or her life. Diana never was a Royal herself due to her descent, but she still is called by many "Princess Diana" even though she was only ever "The Princess Charles" wehn it comes to first names. Does it matter? William was born as the son of TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales and thus he is a prince. If he marries Catherine and they have children together they will be born the children of TRH The Prince and Princess William of Wales and be granted the right to be called Royal Highnesses and Prince/Princess as well. No matter if their mother was born Miss Middleton. I doubt many people will think about that fact and probably only when they see the baptising pics showing the grandparents Middleton.

Or did anyone have problems back then in a quite different time, 50 years pre-French revolution when Louise-Elisabeth de Bourbon-Orleans married the king of Spain? Who was interested that her grandmother on her mother's side was just the lover of her grandfather Louis XIV. and not a princess and not married to the father of her daughter? So if the Royals back then did not bother too much about bloodlines and the Royals of today do neither, and if the majority of the people are only interested in the fact if the new bride fits in with their expectations of a Royal bride - then who should kick the Royals with "too much commoner blood" out of their august position?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1344  
Old 10-08-2008, 07:46 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
If there is no difference any longer between then so-called royalty (ordinary people with titles and privileges) and the public, ordinary people without titles and privileges, what's the point in keeping an expensive Royal Family. . Fine feathers do not automatically make fine birds.
But they do. That's the way the world has been working since day One. Fien feathers do make fine birds indeed and the emperor can be naked as long as people believe he wears expensive clothes. As long as the majority of people believe and the law says that the wife of a prince is a princess and that their children are prince/princess as well, so long will the monarchies exist. and believe me, for most people it is that way and that won't change. People may start to question if there is a need to have Royals at all, but surely not because of the bloodlines of these Royals.

Accept it: people want fairy tales, people want different stations in life and people want princes and princesses. There need to be World Wars or bloody revolutions caused by other reasons really important to governments and people to end monarchies but at least here in Europe there will certainly be no finish to the monarchies due to the commoner blood of the king or queen. because if that was the reason people would actually say that they themselves are the reason and that they won't ever do.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1345  
Old 10-08-2008, 07:46 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Diana was descended more than once from Charles II as was Sarah Ferguson, and it is believed by many that Camilla is very closely related to the royal family. The Louise-Elisabeth even though it was the wrong side of the blanket was of royal descent. We are talking about people that have absolutely no blue blood at all.
I think that being descended from royalty "back" then did matter.
If the royal blood is going to go into extinction then I am all for a republic.
  #1346  
Old 10-08-2008, 08:09 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menarue View Post
If the royal blood is going to go into extinction then I am all for a republic.
Fortunately I doubt you'll find a majority of people to support your views.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1347  
Old 10-08-2008, 08:38 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Fortunately I doubt you'll find a majority of people to support your views.
Fully agreed, JoP! In this day and age, monarchies survive by the will of the people. and if the people don't like the royal family they will find it difficult to flourish. IMO, blue blood per se does not matter, it is te individuals concerned, their attitudes, their aptitudes, their abilities, and what they represent that matter at the end of the day. Lets look at two recent examples:

1) The one tme in her reign that the Queen has come in for direct criticism is in the later years of Diana's life/marriage, and in the time immediately after it. That criticism did not stem from the people suddenly taking a view that the Queen or Charles were not royal enough. It came from a widely held view that perhaps the monarch and the monarchy had become a little out of touch with reality, and with the common man - a quality that Diana was perceived to have an abundance of. Diana was considered to bring a breath of fresh air to the BRF, and a lot of that was attributed to her upbringing as a commoner, and not as a royal. We got through that period with the Queen sticking to what she knows best (ie., doing her duty to crown and country) but also learning from the public criticism, and taking steps to appear more in touch.

2) The second example I want to give is of the recently deposed monarchy in Nepal. The last King Gyanendra and his son, crown prince Paras were incredibly unpopular, even before they came to the throne. The previous King Birendra (elder brother of Gyanendra, who died in a palace massacre in 2000/01), on the other hand, was alays incredibly popular people. Both were of identical parentage, and certainly ones blood was not any bluer than the others!

The only other point that I would make is that if the European royals did not marry outside the family, in a few generations the gene pool itself would become extremely weak!
  #1348  
Old 10-08-2008, 08:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Valletta, Malta
Posts: 38
you are missing my point altogether. fairytales where the prince marries a commoner are really nice to watch and hear about because they don't happen all the time. if all the crown princes and princesses are marrying commoners this is now the norm.

to what someone said that swedish ppl would remember the grandmother queen silvia and be happy, i have my reservations. one of the most important things that make a royal family is the lineage, it's what distinguishes from other families. if the lineage is taken away then i doubt the importance the royal family should actually get. A president's family would be just fine. They would fulfill the role, be a figurehead, give stability and most important of all everybody would at least have the chance of being one, that is, it would not be up to one's luck in being born into the royal family.

The ppl would then remember past great presidents instead of past queens.
  #1349  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:04 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarrie View Post
you are missing my point altogether. fairytales where the prince marries a commoner are really nice to watch and hear about because they don't happen all the time. if all the crown princes and princesses are marrying commoners this is now the norm.

to what someone said that swedish ppl would remember the grandmother queen silvia and be happy, i have my reservations. one of the most important things that make a royal family is the lineage, it's what distinguishes from other families. if the lineage is taken away then i doubt the importance the royal family should actually get. A president's family would be just fine. They would fulfill the role, be a figurehead, give stability and most important of all everybody would at least have the chance of being one, that is, it would not be up to one's luck in being born into the royal family.

The ppl would then remember past great presidents instead of past queens.
That is all true but not the point: some of you are talking about an active change from a monarchy o a republic. As I tried to point out, the argument of lineage does not count for many people, they have heard about Silvia, Diana, Maxima of the Netherlands, but have no idea where these ladies are from and if they learn about it, they don't bother.

But to change the system you need the willingless of the majority of people plus the willingness of the politicians to chose something else and to accept all the risks and difficulties this includes. And I seriously doubt the topic of "Royal bloodlines" could ever be the reason why people want to face the difficulties of a change of their whole country.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1350  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:20 AM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarrie View Post
Regarding the comment posted earlier :
Sarrie, for starters look up to Norway where the current Queen is a commoner and her children have married commoners......this is the way all Royal families are heading...........


Yes I agree in Norway the current queen who is a commoner is very much looked up to and admired. This applies even to her children. However I think that when it's Ingrid Alexandra's to rule and get married (probably to a commoner as well) much of the special aura which have surrounded the royal families up till now would have pretty much evaporated. This would mean that the arguments which up till now have been used to retain the royal families will not remain valid. That is, they are kept as a token of tradition but if tradition is done away with then anybody from norway could becom the head of state, a role which is not administrative and thus it would be inevitable that people would start asking for a republic.

For the 'blue blood' discussion, it shouldn't be taken as a literal sense. Blue blood means of distinguished discent. Now if for example as will probably happen in Sweden in the case of Crown Princess Victoria's children your grandmother was a translator, your father owns a gym and you marry a commoner then that would put you on a social standing equal to someone coming from a very rich family or upper middle class.

Thank you Sarrie for saying it the way I am trying to. I agree with you. One point that does not seem to be made clear to some who disagree is that the "luster" of royalry is being tarnished more and more with each commoner who joins the firms. The ladies may be hard working, beautiful and "accepted" by their in laws and countrymen. This is not the point. My point at least is that the dream is gone, the fairy tale no longer exists. There are so many beloved Queens and princesses, ex hostesses, news readers,real estate agents,and bankers parading down the street in gilded carriages before the people who pay to support them feel they had enough..
  #1351  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:35 AM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
That is all true but not the point: some of you are talking about an active change from a monarchy o a republic. As I tried to point out, the argument of lineage does not count for many people, they have heard about Silvia, Diana, Maxima of the Netherlands, but have no idea where these ladies are from and if they learn about it, they don't bother.

But to change the system you need the willingless of the majority of people plus the willingness of the politicians to chose something else and to accept all the risks and difficulties this includes. And I seriously doubt the topic of "Royal bloodlines" could ever be the reason why people want to face the difficulties of a change of their whole country.
Perhaps not, obviously some people would like to ignore what royalty is and would like to reduce them to equality with their people, but isn´t the point this, why should the tax payer fund someone who is just the same as him/her, why should that person have special privileges when really most of the RF doesn´t do much more than entertain, inaugurate new enterprises and travel to promote trade etc? If he/she is not royal why shouldn´t a perhaps more qualified person do this? On the whole I think that the people of Britain respect the royal family for exactly the reason that they are royal, and as royals represent their country and have done so for over a thousand years. It is no mean feat that a family, or bloodline, has kept power all these years and it would be a pity if this coming generation lets it dissipate.
  #1352  
Old 10-08-2008, 03:35 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
No matter what the lineage is, they all look the same when dissected. Red blood, same organs etc.

The RF and all aristocrats got to the top purely on their ability years ago to scheme, murder and defeat other people who wanted the job.... ordinary people who in many cases were glorified thieves. My own ancestry can be traced back to a landowner who decided to support one such person, (probably because he had a bigger army or was threatened with ruin), who was then rewarded by the monarch for his support.

I'm afraid the mystique and aura of the RF was destroyed in the 80's, so does it matter if Catherine is not a royal or an aristocrat, not IMO. All that matters is that whoever William marries, it is because he loves her and feels able to spend the rest of his life with her, royal descent or not!
  #1353  
Old 10-08-2008, 03:40 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
Aye that is the rub. Does he love her enough to marry her?
__________________
  #1354  
Old 10-08-2008, 03:42 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Ahhh, that we will have to wait and see.
  #1355  
Old 10-08-2008, 04:55 PM
Little_star's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
No matter what the lineage is, they all look the same when dissected. Red blood, same organs etc.
Quote of the day?
__________________
Please give whatever you can to the DEC's Pakistan Floods Appeal. Millions of lives are at risk
http://www.dec.org.uk/index.html
  #1356  
Old 10-08-2008, 05:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 187
kate and william don't want to get married right now. they are too young and right now i don't thank they are ready for marriage, they just want to have fun right now.
  #1357  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:12 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,009
This is an excellent post, Skydragon and very much puts into words what's been going on in my head lately re Royals marrying commoners. Royals aren't Royals because of something special in their DNA, it's because they inherited titles or married people with titles that originally might have had very murky origins. Perhaps commoners bring positive things into Royal Families. Would George VI had been such a well-loved king had he not been married to a woman who could related to "ordinary" people so well. Granted, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the daughter of an Earl; but as is often stated in this forum, aristocrats are considered commoners in the UK.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
No matter what the lineage is, they all look the same when dissected. Red blood, same organs etc.

The RF and all aristocrats got to the top purely on their ability years ago to scheme, murder and defeat other people who wanted the job.... ordinary people who in many cases were glorified thieves. My own ancestry can be traced back to a landowner who decided to support one such person, (probably because he had a bigger army or was threatened with ruin), who was then rewarded by the monarch for his support.

I'm afraid the mystique and aura of the RF was destroyed in the 80's, so does it matter if Catherine is not a royal or an aristocrat, not IMO. All that matters is that whoever William marries, it is because he loves her and feels able to spend the rest of his life with her, royal descent or not!
  #1358  
Old 10-09-2008, 01:16 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
William is a future King and has to produce an heir. Let's not forget the Household and the courtiers, who have immense power over the monarchy. He may not be allowed to marry a middle-class girl because she has no bloodlines.

That's just the way it works. But we'll have to wait and see.
  #1359  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:58 PM
zembla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Camden, United States
Posts: 875
They could use some "middle-class" bloodlines...it would improve the general appearance of future generations.
  #1360  
Old 10-09-2008, 01:43 PM
Menarue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cascais, Portugal
Posts: 2,155
If it were only appearance I would fully agree, but it isn´t. There is more to it than that and you can´t equate an Earl´s daughter to middle class. Commoner, yes because she wasn´t royal but the Queen mother was of royal descent and was welcomed into the RF as was the late Duchess of Gloucester.
If Princess Diana found the courtiers snobbish how would a middle class girl find them? Like it or not they do have power to wield.
Like Leicester and Drake to Queen Elizabeth I, they are the Queen´s eyes and ears.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
engagement, kate middleton, prince william, relationships, speculation, tabloid press


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
William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2009 Warren Prince Harry and Prince William 2017 01-01-2010 11:18 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail elisabeth fashion poll free hosting grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction member watch monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess beatrice hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats prince sverre magnus queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden swedish royal family summer portraits 2016 the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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