William and Kate: engagement and relationship rumours and musings 2005 - 2008

[Elspeth]

I would like to pose one question: all these crown princesses hailing from modest backgrounds are giving the impression that anyone can now be a crown princess. In my opinion this weakens the royal families as in a couple of years time there won't be a drop of blue blood left in any of the royal families of europe. So if for example christian (fred & mary's son) marries a commoner, their offspring wouldn't be a royal at all. Where will that leave us?? I don't think that citizens would like that commoners saying they are 'royals' live the good life at the expense of the taxpayer even less that they like it now. I think that royal families should reconsider their marraiges now before it's too late.

We have an upcoming article that Vanesa has written for the TRF articles site which makes pretty much this exact argument. We're hoping to publish it sometime in the next couple of weeks. It seems to be quite topical, because I'm seeing these concerns being expressed in several forums.

 

[Menarue]

I am looking forward to reading it Elspeth.... I believe it is a real concern for people who would like monarchies to continue.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Why? Perhaps there's something I don't understand.

I believe it is a real concern for people who would like monarchies to continue.

 

[Menarue]

When the article comes out I am sure you will see what is being talked about.

 

[Odette]

I would like to pose one question: all these crown princesses hailing from modest backgrounds are giving the impression that anyone can now be a crown princess. In my opinion this weakens the royal families as in a couple of years time there won't be a drop of blue blood left in any of the royal families of europe. So if for example christian (fred & mary's son) marries a commoner, their offspring wouldn't be a royal at all. Where will that leave us?? I don't think that citizens would like that commoners saying they are 'royals' live the good life at the expense of the taxpayer even less that they like it now. I think that royal families should reconsider their marraiges now before it's too late.

Sarrie, for starters look up to Norway where the current Queen is a commoner and her children have married commoners......this is the way all Royal families are heading...........
BTW I just received the November Vanity Fair and read the entire article about Kate Middleton. It was quite complimentary to her. No new information whatsoever and very little mention on P William. Seemed like a testimonial to her strengths and tact.

 

[Odette]

I am looking forward to reading it Elspeth.... I believe it is a real concern for people who would like monarchies to continue.

I am also dying to read this. At one point I had devoted a whole wall where I had blue threads and red threads and how they connected with each marriage to a commoner and the colour changing to pink as each generation was more and more marrying outside the "Blue Blood" pool. I feel that at this rate there will be no blue bloods in another 2 generations reigning on any royal house in Europe.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I am also dying to read this. At one point I had devoted a whole wall where I had blue threads and red threads and how they connected with each marriage to a commoner and the colour changing to pink as each generation was more and more marrying outside the "Blue Blood" pool. I feel that at this rate there will be no blue bloods in another 2 generations reigning on any royal house in Europe.

One should really see that in historical perspection. The idea or the superiority of "Blue Blood" has, at least in Europe, evolved according to political necessities. In times beforeand during the Baroque/Absolutism is was believed that it needed only the male parent to be a Royal for the child to be a Royal. That changed when the idea of female inheritance came up. Now it is enough to have one reigning parent to be a full-fledged Royal. So if we discuss this in historical context, then the Royal partner in that marriage enobles his child through his sperm/ovum to Royality, no matter where the other partner came from as long as the marriage is legitimate (another historical term!) or as long as the fatherhood is accepted. That's why eg. the illegitimate daughter of Louis XiV. was considered equal to his right Royal nephew the duke de Chartres - her blood was as Royal as his, only the marriage of her parents was missing - so the right catholic mother of the groom got a fit of the vapours while all others accepted this marriage as okay (which over the centuries led to the Orleans-claimant to the French throne of today....)

So discussing this topic in historical terms, it is no problem that the Crown Princes did not marry princesses because it's their heritage that makes the child a Royal. And if you don't subscribe to that idea, you're not a real monarchist, I'M afraid (historically speaking, of course...)

 

[kimebear]

I have to agree with Jo on this. Especially when you consider how well the current formerly commoner Crown Princesses are doing in their jobs. In this day and age, it seems strange to advocate for strictly dynastic marriages just to preserve already thinning blood lines.

A marriage between blue bloods will do nothing to preserve the monarchies if the couple are not wildly in love. How many more Wars of the Waleses do you think the Britsh monarchy can stand? With a limited number of royal candidates, would the chances of finding a true life mate not be much better if picked from the overall population?

 

[Roslyn]

I find this discussion about the importance of "blue blood" and how it is being diluted to the detriment of the monarchy/ies very interesting. Royal blood is no different from the blood of other people.

If you look back over the past thousand years or so, it is clear that the "blue blooded" families, royalty included, only got where they are because they could put together bigger armies or had more wealth (two factors which were usually connected), and could kill more of their opposing armies and take their land, and the families that went with the land, and animals, and jewels.

Success in the military was one common way for men to improve the colour of their blood, for it often received Royal favour, and honours and the land and opportunities that went with them. Men from relatively humble backgrounds could rise to great things and titles after a stint in the army or navy.

The family history of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, provides a useful example. His family can be traced back to one of the Norman invaders, who was given land in reward for his services. Was that Norman soldier's blood any bluer than that of the Saxons they conquered? I think not.

The 1st Duke of Wellington was himself born The Honourable Arthur Wesley (sic.), fourth son of the 1st Earl of Mornington. He chose the army as a career, and was very good at what he did, for he progressed to be created firstly Earl, later Marquess, and finally, Duke of Wellington. Was his blood better than that of less successful military men? I think not.

Wellesley obviously had intelligence and talent, and am inclined to attribute his particular achievements to those factors rather than to anything his ancestors might have done. If his blood was blue, he made it so.

 

[avrilo]

Can you please explain further. I don't see the point of your post... plus, well it has been scientifcally proven that all humans royals or not we all have red blood.... none has blue blood .

 

[Ella Kay]

I agree with your premise, Roslyn; I don't believe that any human is born more inherently special than any other. I'm less concerned with the "blueness" of a person's blood and more concerned with his or her ability to function effectively as a leader or a representative of his or her country. That's one reason I'm not bothered by William's choice of Kate, a commoner, as a girlfriend. I'd wager that William's not too concerned about the blueness of his partner's blood either, judging by his current choice of girlfriend.

 

[Odette]

I suppose we can all agree that we see things at a different angle. There is no doubt that monarchy lasted all these centuries (regardless of their origins) because of an unbroken chain of direct lines. The term "blue blood" does not refer of course on the colour of the blood in their veins.
The marriages with commoners may have produced some happy couples and some divorces and they are no different than those alliances made for political and other considerations. This is not the point. The point is the lowering of the "standards" in terms of provenance.
Prince Haakon for example has a commoner for a mother and wife. His children have titles and Ingrid may be the next Queen of Norway but the bloodline is no longer royal. They may be wildly happy and the ladies may do a fantastic job but this does not make them royal.

 

[Ella Kay]

But even that argument, about heritage making someone "royal," is complicated in Norway, because Crown Prince Haakon's ancestors were elected to that country's throne. Monarchy is a whole new business in the modern era in some ways.

 

[branchg]

Diana was the most aristocratic woman to marry into the royal family in centuries....a Spencer and descendant of The Dukes of Sutherland and Marlborough, not to mention a royal Stuart bloodline. Her maternal grandmother was Lady Fermoy, a close friend and Woman of the Bedchamber to The Queen Mother for forty years. Hardly a commoner at the same level as someone like Sophie Wessex or a Kate Middleton. Even Sarah Ferguson is more blue-blooded than Kate Middleton could ever hope to be.

Whether William will actually marry her is another matter altogether. Being The Prince of Wales and future King carries a heavy burden for his wife. Given the horrendous mistakes made by his father, you can be sure The Queen will not be rushed into giving approval either.

 

[Roslyn]

Can you please explain further. I don't see the point of your post... plus, well it has been scientifcally proven that all humans royals or not we all have red blood.... none has blue blood .

Sorry to have not made myself clear. It made perfect sense to me.

I have previously said here that I believe a person's suitability for a particular job, in particular the wife of a future king, depends on their qualities as an individual.

It has been suggested that the institution of monarchy will suffer by royals marrying commoners.

My point, perhaps not clearly expressed, was that it should not be forgotten how Royals and nobles got to be Royals and nobles. They only occupy that position in society because of an ancestor's success at some activity, primarily soldiering, which led to either the person becoming a monarch (Wiliam the Conquerer) or receiving favours from the monarch which increased the blueness of their blood, such as an earldom or a dukedom, e.g. Wellesley.

The current members of those families are not intrinsically more intelligent than the rest of us or in any way more worthy, though some of them might like to think they are.

The Monarchy's primary role these days is to entertain the people. They don't actually have to make any important decisions any more; we elect people to do that and the Monarch does what she/he is advised. All the Royals have to do is fulfil what are primarily PR duties. The Monarchy needs to connect with the people, and be seen to be relevant. I think it can be just as relevant if a suitable middle class girl marries William as it can if the daughter of an aristocrat marries him. Whoever it is, she will become a princess the day she marries him. Her popularity will depend on her qualities as an individual, not who her ancestors were.

And if the time has come that the institution of the Monarchy really is so insecure that its continued existence is threatened by the mere fact of "commoners" marrying into it, perhaps it's high time it went.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Prince Haakon for example has a commoner for a mother and wife. His children have titles and Ingrid may be the next Queen of Norway but the bloodline is no longer royal. They may be wildly happy and the ladies may do a fantastic job but this does not make them royal.

Odette, I think you misunderstand the system. It may be that in your opinion Ingrid is not Royal but the only opinion that counts is the opinion of the souverain of Norway and of the other crowned heads who have to acknowledge this girl as a Royal. And believe me, they all do!

 

[Menarue]

Roslyn of course no person is better than another there is no need to even mention it. That doesn´t mean that you can say I am just as good as Queen Elizabeth move over because your most remote ancestor wielded a spear and was cleverer than others.....so that doesn´t give you any more right to rule than it would me.
Norway is not a good example the Nordic people have always been more liberal thinking than the Brtiish, that is also not the point.
Where you have a monarchy that has lasted as long as the British has there are traditionalists that would prefer this to go on. If everyone wants a Republic then perhaps they will get it but I would like you to go to an interesting post in the Portuguese thread that points out that nearly all the American Presidents are descended from Edward II of England, and that includes Washington, Ronald Reagan,
Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. In fact there are only a handful that don´t descend from him. Look them up.
Also, Lady Fermoy is not a good example, she was not blue-blooded she married the 4th Baron Fermoy, her style of "lady" derived from her marriage.
The suitability for a job is the person´s qualifications I agree.
If you consider being Queen Consort of Britain is a "job" people can start sending in their cvs.
I think this all equal and going back 1,000 years and saying the originator of a family was.... etc etc. The point is not what they were a 1,000 years ago but the actual "1,000" years that they have lasted and in the case of the Kings of England it is well over this.

 

[muriel]

You have asked me before and I will answer again, get on with her life instead of what seems to be mooning around waiting for a proposal that perhaps will never come. She is a young attractive girl and perhaps she has aimed too high. What should she do? This is the second time on this same post. Get on with her life she is not royalty yet.
I don´t want her to move into Clarence House.... Heaven forbid. I can´t see what is lively about this chat. You are inventing an engagement, making her a suitable bride for royalty etc etc. I would like you to tell me what makes her a suitable future Queen of England? Dignity, good manners, what?
As I have said I have nothing against the girl, she is an attractive young lady from a middle class family but I don´t think she is Queen of England material....
Now what is the lively chat you want? I am not going to change my mind about her suitability so if you want to turn this into a Kate monologue it is up to you.

I have absolutley no intentions of "turning this into a Kate monologue" but I do think you are continually ignoring the points being made, but before I say my last on this for now, I thought I might make some points raised in your last post:

1) You say you don't want Kate to move into CH, yet you go on repeating that she has not had the sign of commitment that Sophie had received, by being given her own apartment at BP - even though others on the forums have pointed out that Sophie did not live full time at BP before they were married!

2) "You are inventing an engagement, making her a suitable bride for royalty etc etc." - I am not sure how you worked all that out. I don't think I have ever mentioned that they are engaged or should get engaged (entirely their decision!) or whether she is a suitable bride for William. All I have consistently said is that your criticisms of her, in my opinion, are not with basis. If one is willing to criticise, I think one should be willing to provide a suitable alternative course of action. Are you sure you don't work for the DM?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think this all equal and going back 1,000 years and saying the originator of a family was.... etc etc. The point is not what they were a 1,000 years ago but the actual "1,000" years that they have lasted and in the case of the Kings of England it is well over this.

The House of Oldenburg in his different branches is the oldest ruling dynasty of Europe. Margrethe, queen of Denmark (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Mary Donaldson as a daughter-in-law. Olav, king of Norway (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Sonja Haraldson as his daughter-in-law. Sofia, queen of Spain (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Letizia Ortiz as her daughter-in-law. Constantine and Anne Marie, ex-king and ex-queen of Greece (both of the House of Oldenburg) have accepted Marie-Chantal Miller as their daughter-in-law. So why should Charles, future king of the UK (of the House of Oldenburg) not accept Catherine Middleton as his daughter-in-law?

 

[Sarrie]

Regarding the comment posted earlier :
Sarrie, for starters look up to Norway where the current Queen is a commoner and her children have married commoners......this is the way all Royal families are heading...........


Yes I agree in Norway the current queen who is a commoner is very much looked up to and admired. This applies even to her children. However I think that when it's Ingrid Alexandra's to rule and get married (probably to a commoner as well) much of the special aura which have surrounded the royal families up till now would have pretty much evaporated. This would mean that the arguments which up till now have been used to retain the royal families will not remain valid. That is, they are kept as a token of tradition but if tradition is done away with then anybody from norway could becom the head of state, a role which is not administrative and thus it would be inevitable that people would start asking for a republic.

For the 'blue blood' discussion, it shouldn't be taken as a literal sense. Blue blood means of distinguished discent. Now if for example as will probably happen in Sweden in the case of Crown Princess Victoria's children your grandmother was a translator, your father owns a gym and you marry a commoner then that would put you on a social standing equal to someone coming from a very rich family or upper middle class.

 

[Warren]

Jo, I hope you're not rubbing the noses of the Saxe-Coburgs in the dynastic game, set and match triumph of the Oldenburgs!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The House of Oldenburg in his different branches is the oldest ruling dynasty of Europe. Margrethe, queen of Denmark (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Mary Donaldson as a daughter-in-law. Olav, king of Norway (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Sonja Haraldson as his daughter-in-law. Sofia, queen of Spain (of the House of Oldenburg) has accepted Letizia Ortiz as her daughter-in-law. Constantine and Anne Marie, ex-king and ex-queen of Greece (both of the House of Oldenburg) have accepted Marie-Chantal Miller as their daughter-in-law. So why should Charles, future king of the UK (of the House of Oldenburg) not accept Catherine Middleton as his daughter-in-law?

Of course he would accept - but that this is not the point. The point is that what you have listed up there Jo - not complete by far - will be the downfall of monarchy in general in the very long term. If there is no difference any longer between then so-called royalty (ordinary people with titles and privileges) and the public, ordinary people without titles and privileges, what's the point in keeping an expensive Royal Family. The job they do can be done by any elected president who, as an extra advantage, can be thrown out if he or she doesn't perform up to the public's expectations. Royalty is about tradition, history, standing out, being special, not about ordinary people turning into HRH by marriage only. Fine feathers do not automatically make fine birds.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

For the 'blue blood' discussion, it shouldn't be taken as a literal sense. Blue blood means of distinguished discent. Now if for example as will probably happen in Sweden in the case of Crown Princess Victoria's children your grandmother was a translator, your father owns a gym and you marry a commoner then that would put you on a social standing equal to someone coming from a very rich family or upper middle class.

If Victoria marries Daniel and if her eldest child is inheriting, then Swedish people will most probably say: this child is the granddaughter of our beloved Queen Silvia and the heir of our beloved Queen Victoria and nothing else IMHO.

People here who argue with the "lessening of the Blood Royal" as a danger to the monarchy don't understand that it's not the Blood Royal who in reality interests the people (as the voters). Today's still ruling dynasties not only have their history and tradition, much more important is the fact that according to the constitution they in fact sit on top of a country's society. It doesn't matter that queen Silvia was born a commoner - what matters is that according to the constitution of Sweden her daughter is the Crown princess who will one day be the next queen.

Only those ex-ruling dynasties have a need to prove again and again that they are something special and not just people like you and me - which they are in their countries. That's why some branches of the Habsburgs eg are so much against the equality politics of their Head. Because of course it deminishes their prestige. But only because they do not longer rule. Once Mette-Marit became legally the Crown Princess of Norway and the mother of the future queen, she became a Royal in the sense of the Norwegian law.

And those who think that marriages to commoners endanger monarchies do IMHO not understand why there are still monarchies there. Becuase they are a political means to stability. Governments and parliaments of the European monarchies tend to work towards political stability. It's not their aim to have to fight to win elections with the aim towards constructing of a new constitution. They are all quite happy if the things stay as they are.
Thus they have no interest to select their Royals into first and second class Royals according to the bloodlines of these Royals. As I wrote before: the legitimate child of a king or queen regnant is a prince or a princess, no matter where the other parent came from. Legally so and in the eyes of society. And that is why the Royals lasted all those centuries: because they had the power and they ruled. Today the people have the power and the government rules but the people represented by their elected members of parliament decided on the constitution which still garantees the place of the Royals in the society. And for the absolute majority of the people a Royal is who the constitution and the law says is a Royal. The rules are there and most people have no problem with them.

They do have other problems, maybe the amount of money the state spends on the Royals and how much they do in their job. But certainly not a problem with the ancestors as long as the ancestor held the staus and position of a member of the Royal family in his or her life. Diana never was a Royal herself due to her descent, but she still is called by many "Princess Diana" even though she was only ever "The Princess Charles" wehn it comes to first names. Does it matter? William was born as the son of TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales and thus he is a prince. If he marries Catherine and they have children together they will be born the children of TRH The Prince and Princess William of Wales and be granted the right to be called Royal Highnesses and Prince/Princess as well. No matter if their mother was born Miss Middleton. I doubt many people will think about that fact and probably only when they see the baptising pics showing the grandparents Middleton.

Or did anyone have problems back then in a quite different time, 50 years pre-French revolution when Louise-Elisabeth de Bourbon-Orleans married the king of Spain? Who was interested that her grandmother on her mother's side was just the lover of her grandfather Louis XIV. and not a princess and not married to the father of her daughter? So if the Royals back then did not bother too much about bloodlines and the Royals of today do neither, and if the majority of the people are only interested in the fact if the new bride fits in with their expectations of a Royal bride - then who should kick the Royals with "too much commoner blood" out of their august position?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

If there is no difference any longer between then so-called royalty (ordinary people with titles and privileges) and the public, ordinary people without titles and privileges, what's the point in keeping an expensive Royal Family. . Fine feathers do not automatically make fine birds.

But they do. That's the way the world has been working since day One. Fien feathers do make fine birds indeed and the emperor can be naked as long as people believe he wears expensive clothes. As long as the majority of people believe and the law says that the wife of a prince is a princess and that their children are prince/princess as well, so long will the monarchies exist. and believe me, for most people it is that way and that won't change. People may start to question if there is a need to have Royals at all, but surely not because of the bloodlines of these Royals.

Accept it: people want fairy tales, people want different stations in life and people want princes and princesses. There need to be World Wars or bloody revolutions caused by other reasons really important to governments and people to end monarchies but at least here in Europe there will certainly be no finish to the monarchies due to the commoner blood of the king or queen. because if that was the reason people would actually say that they themselves are the reason and that they won't ever do.

 

[Menarue]

Diana was descended more than once from Charles II as was Sarah Ferguson, and it is believed by many that Camilla is very closely related to the royal family. The Louise-Elisabeth even though it was the wrong side of the blanket was of royal descent. We are talking about people that have absolutely no blue blood at all.
I think that being descended from royalty "back" then did matter.
If the royal blood is going to go into extinction then I am all for a republic.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

If the royal blood is going to go into extinction then I am all for a republic.

Fortunately I doubt you'll find a majority of people to support your views.

 

[muriel]

Fortunately I doubt you'll find a majority of people to support your views.

Fully agreed, JoP! In this day and age, monarchies survive by the will of the people. and if the people don't like the royal family they will find it difficult to flourish. IMO, blue blood per se does not matter, it is te individuals concerned, their attitudes, their aptitudes, their abilities, and what they represent that matter at the end of the day. Lets look at two recent examples:

1) The one tme in her reign that the Queen has come in for direct criticism is in the later years of Diana's life/marriage, and in the time immediately after it. That criticism did not stem from the people suddenly taking a view that the Queen or Charles were not royal enough. It came from a widely held view that perhaps the monarch and the monarchy had become a little out of touch with reality, and with the common man - a quality that Diana was perceived to have an abundance of. Diana was considered to bring a breath of fresh air to the BRF, and a lot of that was attributed to her upbringing as a commoner, and not as a royal. We got through that period with the Queen sticking to what she knows best (ie., doing her duty to crown and country) but also learning from the public criticism, and taking steps to appear more in touch.

2) The second example I want to give is of the recently deposed monarchy in Nepal. The last King Gyanendra and his son, crown prince Paras were incredibly unpopular, even before they came to the throne. The previous King Birendra (elder brother of Gyanendra, who died in a palace massacre in 2000/01), on the other hand, was alays incredibly popular people. Both were of identical parentage, and certainly ones blood was not any bluer than the others!

The only other point that I would make is that if the European royals did not marry outside the family, in a few generations the gene pool itself would become extremely weak!

 

[Sarrie]

you are missing my point altogether. fairytales where the prince marries a commoner are really nice to watch and hear about because they don't happen all the time. if all the crown princes and princesses are marrying commoners this is now the norm.

to what someone said that swedish ppl would remember the grandmother queen silvia and be happy, i have my reservations. one of the most important things that make a royal family is the lineage, it's what distinguishes from other families. if the lineage is taken away then i doubt the importance the royal family should actually get. A president's family would be just fine. They would fulfill the role, be a figurehead, give stability and most important of all everybody would at least have the chance of being one, that is, it would not be up to one's luck in being born into the royal family.

The ppl would then remember past great presidents instead of past queens.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

you are missing my point altogether. fairytales where the prince marries a commoner are really nice to watch and hear about because they don't happen all the time. if all the crown princes and princesses are marrying commoners this is now the norm.

to what someone said that swedish ppl would remember the grandmother queen silvia and be happy, i have my reservations. one of the most important things that make a royal family is the lineage, it's what distinguishes from other families. if the lineage is taken away then i doubt the importance the royal family should actually get. A president's family would be just fine. They would fulfill the role, be a figurehead, give stability and most important of all everybody would at least have the chance of being one, that is, it would not be up to one's luck in being born into the royal family.

The ppl would then remember past great presidents instead of past queens.

That is all true but not the point: some of you are talking about an active change from a monarchy o a republic. As I tried to point out, the argument of lineage does not count for many people, they have heard about Silvia, Diana, Maxima of the Netherlands, but have no idea where these ladies are from and if they learn about it, they don't bother.

But to change the system you need the willingless of the majority of people plus the willingness of the politicians to chose something else and to accept all the risks and difficulties this includes. And I seriously doubt the topic of "Royal bloodlines" could ever be the reason why people want to face the difficulties of a change of their whole country.

 

[Odette]

Regarding the comment posted earlier :
Sarrie, for starters look up to Norway where the current Queen is a commoner and her children have married commoners......this is the way all Royal families are heading...........


Yes I agree in Norway the current queen who is a commoner is very much looked up to and admired. This applies even to her children. However I think that when it's Ingrid Alexandra's to rule and get married (probably to a commoner as well) much of the special aura which have surrounded the royal families up till now would have pretty much evaporated. This would mean that the arguments which up till now have been used to retain the royal families will not remain valid. That is, they are kept as a token of tradition but if tradition is done away with then anybody from norway could becom the head of state, a role which is not administrative and thus it would be inevitable that people would start asking for a republic.

For the 'blue blood' discussion, it shouldn't be taken as a literal sense. Blue blood means of distinguished discent. Now if for example as will probably happen in Sweden in the case of Crown Princess Victoria's children your grandmother was a translator, your father owns a gym and you marry a commoner then that would put you on a social standing equal to someone coming from a very rich family or upper middle class.

Thank you Sarrie for saying it the way I am trying to. I agree with you. One point that does not seem to be made clear to some who disagree is that the "luster" of royalry is being tarnished more and more with each commoner who joins the firms. The ladies may be hard working, beautiful and "accepted" by their in laws and countrymen. This is not the point. My point at least is that the dream is gone, the fairy tale no longer exists. There are so many beloved Queens and princesses, ex hostesses, news readers,real estate agents,and bankers parading down the street in gilded carriages before the people who pay to support them feel they had enough..