Lulu_tka
Gentry
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 56
- City
- Kyiv
- Country
- Ukraine
of course sooner or later CP will find girl or women who really will love him coz love for money or status that he have can't be forever!
Agree! 100%. I wish they would both come out and speak publicy about their relationship. Although, it is a private matter so why should they? Anyway didnt the prince come out and say he didn't have a girlfirend back in March?and many women think the men love them but it's not true. Wealthy men are well known for chasing leggy models with big boobs. I've no sympathy.
The article says the initiative came from their side.
In general I have little respect for women who decide to show themselves like that. On the other hand, it`s not the worst thing one could do, of course, and it doesn`t mean Sofia is a bad person. I just changed my opinion from positive to neutral - let`s see how the relationship will progress.Why are you changing your opinion, because of an old photo?
Yes, she did a different photo session posing completely nude.So it`s a real relationship, that`s nice. Sofia is a very beautiful woman IMO. As for her past - she never posed nude, did she?
Why are you changing your opinion, because of an old photo?
I don't find the picture remotely shocking. It's not pornography and there is nothing dirty or vile about a naked body (whatever the church may say) .
Because she ain't no princess!
Royals are not just like us, but they seem to be becoming that way......and what a shame
Sorry,but is...... the last generation ...for Monarchy
how more people common
PC: "we are just ordinary men of the people" so absurd, because no, you are not!
I don't find the picture remotely shocking. It's not pornography and there is nothing dirty or vile about a naked body (whatever the church may say) . It's actually an improvement over the snake picture because at least she isn't covered in yellow grease.
Carla Bruni has done far more explicit pictures (her full-frontal nudes are all over the internet).
I do agree with the posters who don't want to see her as a princess. I disapprove of her for the same reasons I disapprove of some other royal girlfriends and wives (too common and lackluster, brings nothing to the table, no charisma, etc.) .
However I have no issue with her nude pictures, and I certainly won't judge her character and intelligence based on that.
Are we looking at the same picture? No one, church or whatever, ever suggested the naked body is shocking, dirty or vile! I disagree with your attempt to ignore the obvious here. The woman is posing naked with only sexy black shoes on. It's obviously meant to be erotic and to get a sexual response from men who drool over pictures of anonymous women like this. It's done in the spirit of smut. There is a difference between nudity and smut.
The question wasn't directed at you, and I do not understand your answer?
What I actually meant was that she does not appear to be a princess in the making.
btw Lumutqueen, since I spend so much of my time reading through all your long posts in just about every section of TRF, would you kindky forgive me for answering a question that wasn't asked of me. It was only one line! Thanks.
Oh I nearly forgot, one of the reasons I thought the photo was sexual was because she's slunk to the floor next to the bathtub in her black shoes. It might be your opinion that it's just a nude picture but that doesn't seem to be the point of the picture.
That picture is erotic and vulgar, Carla Bruni's ones are of a completely different kind and of a much higher level.
Being a royal is not "wearing tiaras, tuxedos and living in castles" but it's having peculiar responsabilities and duties and living with a peculiar dignity. All things that are very far away from what Sofia is.
I don't judge her, she can really be very intelligent and a wonderful person even if she posed naked for vulgar pics, but she cannot be princess material in a minimum serious monarchy. That's all.
A naked picture of Sofia is always going to elicit an erotic response from men because she is a beautiful woman with a sexy body. Period. That shot isn't anywhere near pornography.Are we looking at the same picture? No one, church or whatever, ever suggested the naked body is shocking, dirty or vile! I disagree with your attempt to ignore the obvious here. The woman is posing naked with only sexy black shoes on. It's obviously meant to be erotic and to get a sexual response from men who drool over pictures of anonymous women like this. It's done in the spirit of smut. There is a difference between nudity and smut.
Why, if she will have no responsabilities and duties, should the swedish people pay her - and her offspring - a luxurious lifestyle?
I think that prince CP would be better off anyway if he had to earn a living, it might change him from a boy of thirtysomething into a man who is more than just a pretty face in an uniform. In that respect, backrow royals and models are the same, all they have to do is to be photogenic. Maybe that is what they got in common?
I won't bother quoting your entire post but I agree with everything you said (trust me, your opinion of the Sarkozys is also widely shared in France), with one exception.Why, if she will have no responsabilities and duties, should the swedish people pay her - and her offspring - a luxurious lifestyle? The Sarkozys are elected [ETC.]
But as a royal you do wear Tiara's, Tuxedo's and live in a palace.
This was my way of stating that commoners are different to the royals.
Sofia isn't a royal, so she does not have the responsibilities of a royal or the duties.
She cannot be princess material in a minimum serious monarchy? I'm confused as to what you mean?