What makes royal bloodlines "royal"?
These young women are indeed adapting to their roles well(for the most part. I still have SERIOUS doubts about Mette-Marit but that is another story) But if the trend to marry "down" continues into the next two or three generations and let's say William and Kate's son marries a commoner, who marries a commoner, who marries another commoner, what will be the point of "Royalty" that isn't really Royal at all?? They might as well abolish the lot and declare a Republic. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that Royalty SHOULd have some Royal or noble bloodlines.
Hi, CaliforniaDreamin. Maybe you and/or Henri could help me understand your position. I've researched the origins of many of the more prominent royal houses and as far as I can tell, most of the original "kings" were actually barbarian leaders or revolutionaries who broke from the Roman empire and established their own "kingdoms", which would make them no better than any other person, and certainly no better than any "commoner", making all descendants of all royal families descendants from commoners who either bought, bribed, or revolted their way into a throne. And with many of them, their titles and styles were rewards for monetary payments to the Catholic church and bestowed by the Pope.
The battles and political maneuvering that brought all of these houses into being may have been heroic, but the current day descendants don't display that same character and, in fact, many of them display behavior that could be called questionable - if not unacceptable - among most "commoner" households. I have a pretty irreverant sense of humor but I would never have even considered wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party. And even though I have a bawdy sense of humor, if I knew a brother and two sisters who spent as much time sleeping around and conceiving children out of wedlock the way the Monaco royals do, I would call them sluts, unless I was being polite, in which case I would call them epically irresponsible.
So many people criticize Mette-Marit for poor judgement in her youth, when many "blue-bloods" such as Albert II, Bernhard, Alfonso XIII, the aforementioned Monagasques,et.al., get a pass for exactly the same thing - knowing that they were in the spotlight.
In addition, Mette-Marit has been very forthcoming about her choices and while she isn't the most professional or stylish princess, on the whole her behavior is at least as good as (if not better than) the current Savoy pretenders, the "wit" of the Duke of Edinburgh, and the social graces of the Ernst August of Hannover, himself the descendant of a Danish princess who bore a child out of wedlock seven years before being married off to a Hanoverian prince.
So why all the criticism of the current crop of commoners who have married into the royal families? The behavior is the same or better so is it just the bloodlines? Many studies have suggested that with the way the kings and queens of the past slept around creating bastards all over the place. The research suggests that the descent from them means that almost everyone is descended from royalty. It that is true, then all of us commoners have "royal" blood and that criticism is faulty.
I don't intend to sound argumentative (but it reads like I do). I'm just really curious about the attitude that royals should only marry royals. With more than 40 years of evidence to the contrary, some people speak about a "commoner" destroying a monarchy purely by marrying a royal (and this is usually only directed at women...Daniel Westling aside. No one questions whether or not Inaki Urdangarin will be the downfall of the royal house of Spain).
So please help me understand. Is my very quick internet research about the origins of current monarchies invalid? Or is there some other more convincing evidence that monarchies came into being other than some guy 1,000 years ago declaring he was a king "just because he said so"?
Thanks in advance for any response.
Rascal
.
