The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   General Royal Discussion Archive (
-   -   Are Royal born princesses more accepted? (

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.

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


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


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.

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.

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

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises