The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Chit Chat (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/)
-   -   Yesterday, Today, Or Tomorrow? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/yesterday-today-or-tomorrow-5298.html)

Freedom 03-07-2005 09:00 PM

Yesterday, Today, Or Tomorrow?
 
When would you prefer to have lived a royal life?

Year:
1950,
2000, or
2050?

...and as a woman or a man?

Lena 03-08-2005 07:58 AM

Thatīs a tough (but good) question...how can we know, how the Royal life will be in 2050, or if there would be a Royal life at all.
Well, I guess it can only become worse. So if I would want a Royal life (not sure about that...rather not) then I would want to live in 1950 and as a male Royal...to say that on world womenīs day is a bit awkward :rolleyes: ...but I think in the Royal world itīs even nowadays easier to be man (at least, when you are the Royal born male...would never want to be a prince consort).
To be a male Royal in 1950 includes also some disadvantages (e.g. you have to marry Royal) too, but when I look at the extremely unformal interpretation of a Monarchy nowadays, I prefer the model from 1950. Either a real Royal or no Royal! ;)

semisquare 03-09-2005 07:23 PM

i would have like to live as royalty in france during the 1700's as a women. i would like to think i would be able to advise the queen to take charge and make some good decisions

Mascha 03-10-2005 07:53 AM

2000 definitely and also as a woman. I like what women with a little bit of "power" can do today. Look at Queen Sofia, she uses her status for a lot of positive things (against drugs, for microcredit etc.). I also like what Lalla Salma does by just being there, her role is so new. Because she and king Mohammed are all for change.:) That is a good thing..

Freedom 03-10-2005 11:33 PM

I agree with Mascha that I'd prefer to be a royal in present day (2000). While I love the glamour of the 1950's, I don't think that period allowed royals, especially women, the inspiring freedom granted today.

Today, I feel royals are not only permitted to do benevolent work for the world and its inhabitants, but they are moreover obligated to do so. I think the good, selfless, and apolitical deeds royals do today will really determine what becomes of aristocracy throughout the next few centuries. As times now change faster and faster, and as democracy permeates new lands, I think royals are at a crossroads of deciding their fate. Therefore, I'd like to be a royal 'female' today, so, in this monumental period, I could watch over, assist in, and nurture the path that is being created for royals tomorrow.
:)

Furienna 06-14-2006 07:45 PM

I would never have liked to be royal, I believe. Back in 1950, as Lena said, you could only marry another royal, and you were disowned if you married a commoner. At least five Swedish princes lost their royal status because they married "common" women. No princess ended up in that situation, but then, we had fewer princesses than princes for generations, so it was more likely, mathemathically speaking, that a prince fell in love with "the wrong woman" than that a princess fell in love with "the wrong man". But I think a princess marrying a "common" man would have been disowned too back in the day. How it was in other countries, I don't know, but probably very similar to what it was like here in Sweden. Not nice at all...

Nowadays, you don't have any powers at all, but you're still always in the spotlight, haunted by the tabloids. You always have to be pretty and flawless. Doesn't sound like my way of living either.

And in 2050... We don't know... Victoria will probably be our queen then and an old queen at that... And there will probably be a king William V in England. And either an old king Frederick X or a middle aged king Christian XI in Denmark and an old king Haakon VIII or a middle-aged queen Ingrid in Norway. But what will life be like for them? We don't know! So I can't answer.

angiep 06-14-2006 09:30 PM

As far as the 'best' time period for a Royal, the distinct advantage in 1950 would be that the press was much more reverential and there weren't paparazzi stalking them. And, of course, no message boards with people like us dissecting Royal lives :p

royaltywatcher 06-14-2006 09:45 PM

I've often wondered what the members of royal families think of this board, if they know of it, if they read it, or (who knows) are actually members! I would be willing to bet at least some read it.

Back to the question, an interesting one. I don't think there will be much left of royalty in 2050. So that leaves 1950 and 2000. So I will choose in this order:
1. male royal in 1950

2. male royal in 2000 (agreeing with Lena that it's always easier to be a man, and easier to be a man in the past than today)

3. female (other than sovereign queen) royal in 2000 (agreeing that they have a little more influence today than in 1950)

4. female royal in 1950 (although I also agree that I prefer some of the old formality). One exception, I would prefer to be a sovereign Queen in 1950 than today.

kwanfan 06-14-2006 10:10 PM

I'd choose to be a royal woman in this day and age. I'd love to be able to do charity work and have the media attention that would allow my work to be publicized, and hopefully influence other people. The one negative about being a royal female is that IMO royal women are criticized more than royal men. The criticisms of royal men are typically just being "party princes," or not working hard enough. Royal women face criticism for all aspects of their wardrobe, for how quickly they're able to produce an heir, and many other things. But I'd still rather be a woman!

princess olga 06-14-2006 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom
When would you prefer to have lived a royal life?

Year:
1950,
2000, or
2050?

...and as a woman or a man?

Fascinating question! And a difficult one, I had to ponder it a bit.

Now I'm thinking my choice would be:

Year: 2000.
As a Man.
BUT! not just any man.
Would I trade places with unemployed King Constantine of Greece? No, thanks.

Would I, instead, trade places with semi-handsome, semi-intelligent, semi-anything-seeming guys like Alexander of the Netherlands, who would have had quite a challenge ending up with such a drop dead gorgeous girl like Maxima if it hadn't been for the fact he can offer her love AND a crown? Or Fred of Denmark, who gets to send both his photogenic, poised spouse as well as his father to fend for themselves at important royal gatherings like the celebration of the king of Sweden's recent 60th birthday, with the excuse he has to participate in a sailing competition? Heck, yes!

All the same, if I <really> had to trade places with a 21st century male, I'd rather be someone who had achieved something incredible on his own merit & chose to hand out his wealth to the less blessed of the world...Bill Gates anyone?!

princess olga 06-14-2006 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angiep
As far as the 'best' time period for a Royal, the distinct advantage in 1950 would be that the press was much more reverential and there weren't paparazzi stalking them. And, of course, no message boards with people like us dissecting Royal lives :p

LOL that's a great point! :p

royaltywatcher 06-14-2006 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess olga
Would I trade places with unemployed King Constantine of Greece? No, thanks.

Good point, I always thought his situation was icky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by princess olga
Would I, instead, trade places with semi-handsome, semi-intelligent, semi-anything-seeming guys like Alexander of the Netherlands, who would have had quite a challenge ending up with such a drop dead gorgeous girl like Maxima if it hadn't been for the fact he can offer her love AND a crown? Or Fred of Denmark, who gets to send both his photogenic, poised spouse as well as his father to fend for themselves at important royal gatherings like the celebration of the king of Sweden's recent 60th birthday, with the excuse he has to participate in a sailing competition? Heck, yes!

Too true, and too funny.

princess olga 06-15-2006 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royaltywatcher
Good point, I always thought his situation was icky.

yes Constantine of Greece's situation always struck me as completely unenvyable (sp?), no matter which way you slice it.
Gotta say that even though at times he strikes me as completely delusional, I likewise admire his poise and the fact that during all these difficult years, he's been able somehow to keep his head up, which can't have been easy.

AquaMarine 06-15-2006 12:23 AM

Wow :rolleyes: what a good question, Freedom! :)
...As to me I would prefer to be a Royal woman in the late fifties and sixties beginning - my favourite time! I adore movies with Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe made in fifties. I am absolutelly enchanted with that period - its atmosphere, style, fashion, Art, old fashioned traditions...And it would be so wonderful to have a dip in the atmosphere of Paris, London and New York of those gone years :)

Princess Maxima 06-15-2006 06:56 PM

Royal woman in present day :) With all this glamorous crownprincesses!

Mathilde1286 06-27-2006 09:02 PM

That's easy. In the present, as a woman.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises