The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion Archive (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f289/)
-   -   Are Royal born princesses more accepted? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f289/are-royal-born-princesses-more-accepted-5262.html)

Lena 03-01-2005 10:50 AM

Are Royal born princesses more accepted?
 
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.

cd_1 03-01-2005 01:05 PM

yes, i think they are more accepted too. Even though Mary and Letizia are really popular, they have to work harder than those who are born royal. Furthermore, those princess born royal have a strong support network among the royal community. Theyare all friends of their parents, their relatives, etc. So in a sense I think they feel more secure in such community, its like they are marrying into their own family. whereas commoners are looked upon as outsiders, and are first recieved with hestitaion, background checks are made, etc. and if they make mistakes, then they, in my opinion, are more harshly critisized.

wittykitty 03-01-2005 04:48 PM

Yes, If your a born princess the press cut's more slack evne if your lazy dumb as a rock type what wants to use a title as a cash cow
remember even a formal education was not essential to become a queen.
wittykitty.

akina21 03-01-2005 09:22 PM

Not if they come from Germany and take part in reality tv shows .

sara1981 03-01-2005 09:31 PM

i vote said yes!

but i never know that Crown Princess Mary been popular in Denmark and also Letizia, Maxima and Mathilde too.

and late Diana,Princess of Wales been so popular Princess because she is daughter of late 8th Earl Spencer many people really adores of her lots since 1981-1997 for 15 years.

have more popular as Princess,Countess or Duchess?

Sara Boyce

Alexandria 03-01-2005 11:11 PM

A very interesting poll question Lena! I think that this will lead to a very interesting discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena
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.

I think there is a slight difference in the reasoning for the criticism amongst the above examples. Martha Louise, Madeleine, Cristina and Elena share similar roles (amongst each other) in that they are the sisters of the heir to the thrones; while Letizia, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde, et. al. are the future queens of their respective countries. The demands and expectations on the present Crown Princesses are much different than the demands and expectations on their (royal born) sister-in-laws.

Martha Louise, Cristina, Elena, and when she finishes school Madeleine, all have jobs on top of their royal duties, while Letizia, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde's sole jobs are to perform royal duties. In that sense I think less is expected of the former because their time is divided. If Cristina and Elena each only do 25 royal duties a year there isn't too much public fuss over the cost of the monarchy being exorbitant or public outcries of King Juan Carlos' daughters being lazy. But if Letizia were to perform only 25 royal duties in one year, I'm certain that there would be public outcries of Letizia being lazy and living off the Spanish tax payers money (and rightfully so).

The Crown Princesses also have much pressure to produce an heir -- a pressure that has weighed much less (if at all) on Martha Louise, Cristina, Elena and presumably Madeleine when the time comes for her. Maud Angelica and Froilan were respectively, the Norwegian and Spanish King's first grandchildren. And while I noticed the Norwegian and Spanish press much anticipated and chronicled these arrivals, there was much more pressure on Mette-Marit to produce a child -- a child, Ingrid Alexandra, who is now the heir to the throne. And consider the constant, incessant speculation and predictions of when Letizia will announce that she is pregnant, and all the rumours and stories of why she is not pregnant yet. I don't think I ever read one story about why Elena and Cristina didn't have children yet only 5 months after their marriage or stories about how Elena's high heels were causing her infertility problems.

Victoria is in a class of her own in that she will be the Queen of Sweden, and not "only" the Queen Consort, as Letizia, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde and Mette-Marit will be. Although all the pressures faced by the other crown princesses (hard working enough, when will she produce an heir) will also follow Victoria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cd_1
Furthermore, those princess born royal have a strong support network among the royal community. Theyare all friends of their parents, their relatives, etc. So in a sense I think they feel more secure in such community, its like they are marrying into their own family. whereas commoners are looked upon as outsiders, and are first recieved with hestitaion, background checks are made, etc. and if they make mistakes, then they, in my opinion, are more harshly critisized.

I think this is a really good point cd_1. Cristina, Elena, Martha Louise, Astrid, etc. grew up with royal expectations drilled into them, or at least they learned from the examples of their parents about royal life, protocol, expectations, etc. Letizia, Mary, Mette-Marit all came from middle-class/upper-middle class backgrounds and with the exception of Letizia, none of them ever lived a second in the public eye until meeting their respective princely husbands. Becoming a royal is a big adjustment. Life in a fish bowl would be, for me, the biggest adjustment because your life is no longer your own and subject to all sorts of scrutiny by hundreds, thousands of people who don't know you but feel that they know you or that they have a right to judge and criticize you because of what you're wearing, your actions, how you carry yourself, etc. Even one little mis-step by any of these ladies can lead to tremendous criticism on the media and public's part. (I think Mette-Marit received the most heavy criticism of all the Crown Princesses for her "colourful" past.)

When you think about born royals who have led "colourful" lives which are just as "colourful" as Mette-Marit's, or just as "un-royal" as Mette-Marit's (eg. Stephanie of Monaco, Margrita of the Netherlands, Frederick of Great Britain), they are indeed subject to much less scruitiny because their parents were princesses or dukes -- although they are much less "significant" royals in comparison to Crown Princesses.

It's also sexist, but I think in most cases men are not subjected to as much criticism as women. Prince Harry has certainly had his missteps rather publicly chronicled and has been raked through the coals for them, but not as much as the public outcry over Mette-Marit in her first months as Crown Princess or when she made equally public mis-steps such as the airline incident when she yelled (and I think slapped at her assistant's hand). And how much ink has been spilled over Letizia's weight issue in comparison to Prince Ernst August's peeing incident on the Turkish pavilion several years ago.

bad_barbarella 03-01-2005 11:31 PM

It completely depends how they are raised some rich girls are raised like princesses so protcol and ettique and dress wouldn't be a problem but those who live a more normal life and suddenly change... like Mary had to work hard to become who she is today... yet Princess Sybilla of Luxembourg seems as natural as a born princess... but in saying that not all rich girls fit the royal protcol like harry's ex girlfriend.

Dennism 03-02-2005 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandria
It's also sexist, but I think in most cases men are not subjected to as much criticism as women. Prince Harry has certainly had his missteps rather publicly chronicled and has been raked through the coals for them, but not as much as the public outcry over Mette-Marit in her first months as Crown Princess or when she made equally public mis-steps such as the airline incident when she yelled (and I think slapped at her assistant's hand). And how much ink has been spilled over Letizia's weight issue in comparison to Prince Ernst August's peeing incident on the Turkish pavilion several years ago.


Well said, Alexandria. There is a little bit of bias. Not to forget the general lack of criticism when it comes to men and their clothes. Is there any more information about Mette-Marit´s plane incident? I had not heard of that.

saloua 03-02-2005 09:38 AM

yes she is born princess with (maya ) in mouth

Alexandria 03-02-2005 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bad_barbarella
Princess Sybilla of Luxembourg seems as natural as a born princess...

Princess Sybilla is royal or at least from nobility isn't she? Which would make Sybilla more than just a woman who came from a wealthy background. While her family may not be as prominent as Cristina, Elena, Astrid, Madeleine, she still grew up with and is familiar with some royal protocol and expectations.

Warren 03-02-2005 11:40 AM

To the Manor Born
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandria
Princess Sybilla is royal or at least from nobility isn't she? Which would make Sybilla more than just a woman who came from a wealthy background. While her family may not be as prominent as Cristina, Elena, Astrid, Madeleine, she still grew up with and is familiar with some royal protocol and expectations.

Princess Sybilla is the daughter of Donna Olimpia and Paul-Annik Weiller.

Donna Olimpia is the daughter of Infanta Beatriz of Spain, who married the 5th Prince of Civitella-Cesi. This wedding in 1935 was a particularly glittering Royal event, attended by King Alfonso, the King and Queen of Italy, and "52 Princes of the Royal Blood."

The Infanta Beatriz was the sister of King Juan Carlos's father, the Count of Barcelona. They were two of the children of King Alfonso XIII and Queen Ena.

Thus Princess Sybilla has the distinction of being a descendent of Queen Victoria.

In other words, she was Royal in all but name. And now she is a Royal Highness. It is no surprise that she has assumed the role of a Princess of Luxembourg with such grace.

Dennism 03-02-2005 10:10 PM

Thanks for all of that information. Good of you to tell us all about Sybilla´s family.

Genevieve 03-02-2005 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
Princess Sybilla is the daughter of Donna Olimpia and Paul-Annik Weiller.

Donna Olimpia is the daughter of Infanta Beatriz of Spain, who married the 5th Prince of Civitella-Cesi. This wedding in 1935 was a particularly glittering Royal event, attended by King Alfonso, the King and Queen of Italy, and "52 Princes of the Royal Blood."

The Infanta Beatriz was the sister of King Juan Carlos's father, the Count of Barcelona. They were two of the children of King Alfonso XIII and Queen Ena.

Thus Princess Sybilla has the distinction of being a descendent of Queen Victoria.

In other words, she was Royal in all but name. And now she is a Royal Highness. It is no surprise that she has assumed the role of a Princess of Luxembourg with such grace.

So before her marriage to Guillaume was she titled?

In the thread on Elisabeth of Bavaria's wedding I thought it was mentioned that Princess Elisabeth was Sybilla's sister which would have made Sybilla royal born?

pdas1201 03-03-2005 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve
So before her marriage to Guillaume was she titled?

In the thread on Elisabeth of Bavaria's wedding I thought it was mentioned that Princess Elisabeth was Sybilla's sister which would have made Sybilla royal born?

Though she is royal born, she wasn't titled when she married Guillaume. Though her mother was titled, after marriage she didn't pass on the title to her children as in the case of all the royal families. Therefore, she was just Miss. Sybilla Weiller before her marriage.

I don't know of any connection between Elizabeth of Bavaria and Sybilla Weiller. She isn't Elizabeth's sister, Elizabeth has 3 sisters, one of whom is Princess Sophie of Leichtenstein, wife of Prince Alois of Leichtenstein.

Warren 03-03-2005 01:27 AM

The Lost sister
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pdas1201
I don't know of any connection between Elizabeth of Bavaria and Sybilla Weiller. She isn't Elizabeth's sister, Elizabeth has 3 sisters, one of whom is Princess Sophie of Leichtenstein, wife of Prince Alois of Leichtenstein.

And one more makes 4 sisters.

Sophie - married to the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein
Marie - married to to Duke Philip of Wurttemberg
Helene - unmarried
Elisabeth - married to Daniel Terberger
Anna - unmarried

There's sure to be a spare Archduke or two around somwhere...

pdas1201 03-03-2005 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
And one more makes 4 sisters.

Sophie - married to the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein
Marie - married to to Duke Philip of Wurttemberg
Helene - unmarried
Elisabeth - married to Daniel Terberger
Anna - unmarried

There's sure to be a spare Archduke around somwhere...

Ah...thanks, Warren. I was forgetting Maria Anna, isn't she the prettiest of them all???

Josefine 03-03-2005 05:21 PM

the born princesses may not get the amount of criticle views but they have also not the same popularity as the new married in royal princesses

Warren 03-04-2005 03:09 AM

Fresh and New!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Josefine
the born princesses may not get the amount of critical views but they have also not the same popularity as the new married in royal princesses

The public and the media like new and fresh Princesses, who just appear. Fairytale stuff. eg Crown Princess Mary: "Aussie girl made good".

And what a surprise Mathilde was when the engagement was announced - who would have thought that Philippe would find such a stunning partner.

People are interested in how the new Princesses cope, and develop in their roles. Perhaps this adds to the "mystique" of Monarchy, rather than detracts from it, because people can identify with the new Royal in regards to their background.

But we have high expectations, and traditionalists are ever-ready to find fault, eg Letizia, Mette-Marit. Maxima had a very tough time initially, the alleged sins of the father visited on the daughter, but she also has been a revelation, and has captured the public's imagination

You would have to be a brave and confident woman to place yourself under the microscope by accepting the marriage proposal of a Prince.
.

semisquare 03-05-2005 01:41 PM

neither litezia or mary are very popular here in the states (sorry folks) but the person who marrys prince albert will be very popular here. i do think that royal born princess are cut more slack. case in point is princess madeline and her very bad driving record, if this happen to a non-royal born princesses it would make headlines, license taken -and all the other hogwash that goes with it.

Josefine 03-07-2005 07:29 AM

in sweden and the swedish press

we will be able to compare when carl phikip gets mariied
but i think princess madeleine gets more criticism then her sister
and the new princesses get nice stories in the swedish press more often the madeleine and victoria

cute_girl 03-09-2005 11:18 AM

I voted no,because none of the poplular princesses i know are royal born,but of course I think there's a diffrence between a princess from a notable family and one from a low class family or with a bad history

Josefine 03-15-2005 04:50 PM

there seems to be a majoruity of members saying yes Royal born princesses more accepted

Josefine 03-28-2005 07:07 AM

could a born princess get a way with more controversial stuff then a married in princess

elizahawthorne 03-28-2005 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josefine
could a born princess get a way with more controversial stuff then a married in princess

well, I certainly belive that a someone who becomes a royal after marriage is often more scrutinized and perhaps needs to prove herself, for the lack of a better word, worthy. But if she makes an error people still might be forgiving, not so I believe with a born princess, for with a born princess people expect she'll know what she's doing by now, but with a married princess they might be forgiving and think that okay it's still a little new to her...I think it just depends

mgrant 03-31-2005 10:22 PM

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?:confused:

hillary_nugent 03-31-2005 11:07 PM

I voted yes. While MAry and Letezia prove to be very popular right now at first there was alot of criticism against them and it took a while before many people accepted them and liked them.

Josefine 07-01-2005 10:39 AM

do we got more voters for this poll

galuhcandrakirana 07-02-2005 05:07 AM

I come in to this thread but it is already closed :-(.

Josefine 07-02-2005 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galuhcandrakirana
I come in to this thread but it is already closed :-(.

how do you mean closed

delineate 08-03-2005 06:48 PM

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.

Josefine 08-04-2005 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delineate
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 08-23-2005 09:46 AM

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 08-23-2005 02:36 PM

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

tiaraprin 08-24-2005 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgrant
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?:confused:

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

Warren 08-24-2005 04:40 AM

Empress Frederick
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
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 08-24-2005 04:54 AM

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.:confused:

tiaraprin 08-24-2005 05:01 AM

Henrietta Maria, Consort to Charles I of England
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
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 08-24-2005 03:53 PM

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 10-02-2005 12:48 AM

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 02-02-2006 07:47 AM

wow there seems to be a slam dunk in this poll

star84 10-26-2006 01:02 AM

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 10-26-2006 04:50 AM

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

platinum69 10-29-2006 07:07 AM

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 10-30-2006 11:31 AM

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

Bella 10-30-2006 12:48 PM

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 10-30-2006 03:35 PM

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 10-30-2006 04:08 PM

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) :D

Tinika 10-30-2006 04:54 PM

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

Verde Esmeralda 01-15-2007 10:01 PM

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 01-30-2007 09:54 AM

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 10-05-2007 05:15 PM

of course, they are more accepted.

coco 11-22-2007 04:39 PM

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 05-31-2009 10:33 AM

I think yes. Royal born Princesses are more accepted.

Lumutqueen 05-31-2009 11:12 AM

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 05-31-2009 02:21 PM

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 07-06-2009 01:14 AM

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 07-06-2009 03:56 AM

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 07-06-2009 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena (Post 181241)
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 07-06-2009 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 962255)
. . . . . 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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 962255)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 962255)
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 07-06-2009 11:12 AM

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 :closedeye

orb and sceptre 07-06-2009 07:17 PM

I also think that it depends on just how "commoner" they are.

Crown Princess Mathilde and Diana, Princess of Wales were both born into nobility, which I think gave them the best position one could enter the press in: already posessing the etiquette and manners necessary for the position, but still a fresh face who knows what it's like to have a 9 to 5 job. Crown Princess Mette-Marit had a bigger obstacle, I think, being a single mother.

The line between the two is getting a bit blurrier anyways. For every poised, private former commoner, like the Princess of Asturias, there is a hell raising Princess Stephanie!

Pomerania 07-14-2009 01:41 AM

are Royal born princesses more accepted?
 
The position of a royal princess is unique. The criticism and the support go to both cases. Since the post second war ,the royal world has been accepted the possibility of communer additions (first from the nobility_ Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon arrived to the Abbey with a police guard- then came Princess Grace, queen Silvia and queen Sonia). The most important is the individual, her background, the support of the families and of course the love of the couple. The Monarchy is based on tradition; the rule that a prince must marry in the royal circle has been part of this. Now certain grade of change is coming with the new age as the princes met the people of different levels. So welcome the new princess who takes care of this old institution with love, grace, elegance, diplomacy and the knowing of their role. Perhaps the future gives us cases of royal :rose2:consort queens born as royal ladies. It will be nice.

HIRM&DSS Darius 07-14-2009 02:32 AM

I do wish to ask a question in regards to this poll. More accepted by whom? other Royals? The international community? or the people of their particular country? Princess Diana, Princess Grace were both widely accepted especially on an international level. Among Nobilities it is usually more difficult for a male marrying in or being adopted. In general once the parents/ font of the house approve a union of a female to their son and title her, she is fully accepted. They would not approve nor support the marriage taking place if they did not deem the bride suitable. Males marrying into the family ( unless already Royal by blood) will generally have a harder time of it. In direct line to the throne unions in many cases past, fertility of course has been an issue. In past many Monarchs have had marriages anulled and re- married when consort could not produce an heir.

IloveCP 05-19-2011 04:45 PM

I do think they are.There are a lot of up sides to royals marrying other royals.Like they know what its like to be royal and the ups and downs to it.So they dont need "time" to see what the life is like and to enjoy the last years of "normal" life,before they get married.

Charlotte_Aster 05-19-2011 06:12 PM

well there is maxima and them we have the york girls...

Princess B 06-19-2011 02:07 PM

unfortunately its true....
although princesses marrying into the royal family often have a more prominent role, the get a lot of flak

XeniaCasaraghi 06-19-2011 08:32 PM

I have to agree with the question of "accepted by whom"? I know the most popular princesses I hear about are the one's who have married into it. Princess Anne of England isn't well liked by many people, but then again not being popular doesn't necessarily mean you aren't accepted.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises