So, according to your thinking, why do you view the Count of Paris's statement as petty (I assume you do, as you haven't made the same "it's not that petty" comment about his statement)?
I don’t have much to say on the Count’s statement actually, when I said “petty” it wasn’t necessarily about his statement but you saying :
Is it more petty or absurd than the comments which are rife on royalty forums, social media, news media and wiki articles etc. about how so-and-so is not a "real" prince, princess, royal, heir, or member of the house because they are "only" descended from a royal family through a female line or by adoption?
At least this particular comment of Jean's is not about discrimination against people on the basis of their gender or their ancestry, only discrimination between couples who follow family traditions and the family's church's rules for their marriages and those who do not.”
So, according to your thinking, why do you view the Count of Paris's statement as petty (I assume you do, as you haven't made the same "it's not that petty" comment about his statement)?
I don’t have much to say on the Count’s statement actually, when I said “petty” it wasn’t necessarily about his statement but you saying :
Is it more petty or absurd than the comments which are rife on royalty forums, social media, news media and wiki articles etc. about how so-and-so is not a "real" prince, princess, royal, heir, or member of the house because they are "only" descended from a royal family through a female line or by adoption?
At least this particular comment of Jean's is not about discrimination against people on the basis of their gender or their ancestry, only discrimination between couples who follow family traditions and the family's church's rules for their marriages and those who do not.”