Pranter
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 12,309
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
I've seen nothing confirming the media is right about this.
LaRae
LaRae
William hardly knew Madeleine, so I don't see how you can say she'd be the best choice.
Frankly, those dynastic marriages seldom seemed very happy. The couples often ended up living completely separate lives, married in name only. Why would anyone choose that? I'm sure both William and Madeleine were pleased to be able to make their own choices, and I don't see anything so unsuitable about either of them.
Ranks Of suitable brides
Princess of a reigning monarchy
Princess of a former
Aristocrat with a pedigree as close to royal as possible
Blue blooded virgin of the highest social class with pristine background
Last resort anyone who isn't divorced, has a kid, of worked a blue collar job
Education, knowing each other, things in common.....matter little to blood
Posters looking with dédain to fellow posters which hold some expectations on a certain standard, class, background or prestige for royal partners forget that they are looking and contributing to the Royal Forums and it is exactly that certain standard, class, background or prestige which makes royalty and nobility what it is.
Last week an Italian nobleman died tragically in a bicycle accident in London. These accidents happen every day, in every country. But here it was a scion of a centuries old Florentine family which delivered princes, cardinals and popes. That spoke to the imagination and that was why in all media, from the Daily Mail to the Guardian, this accident was mentioned.
When Pierre Casiraghi married Donna Beatrice Borromeo, here on the forum and in general media people were fascinated by the bride with two aristiocratic parents, marrying on one the Borromean (!) Isles where they own a fabulous castle. That spoke to the imagination indeed. The Daily Mail had the headline: "Your castle, or mine?"
So when a Prince of the blood royal comes home with a Meghan Markle, hmmm, yes... celebbie loving Daily Mail will splash it all out but is it good for the monarchy as an institute? I dare to doubt it. It needs some decorum, distance and yes, may I use the word: some mystique.
I don't see what's the problem with Meghan having strong opinions and beliefs. Personally, I think it's extremely important that someone has them because why else bother? The days where women were supposed to be obedient and soft are gone and thankfully they are.
I have always found it a shame that Kate has yet to find something that really gets her and is something that she wants to fight for. Mental health is shared with her husband and brother-in-law, it's not something that is entirely her. Not in the way micro-financing is Màxima's, or education for girls is Mary's.
Her work for the UN and charities speak for themselves. She has worked for her own money for years and is more than capable of supporting herself. She has passions and opinions and is a very good looking woman. Harry is doing well for himself here.
A lot of objections to her seem racially rooted, which is worrying. Besides the fact that she's going to receive a lot of hate for being bi-racial, she'd have to give up her career. Don't think many women should envy her for that position.
A lot of objections to her seem racially rooted, which is worrying. Besides the fact that she's going to receive a lot of hate for being bi-racial, she'd have to give up her career. Don't think many women should envy her for that position.
Saying her divorce is a disadvantage, when the future King and Consort and 3/4 of HMs children are divorced, is ironic.
And where is the mystique about Prince Henry? We all know how his bottom looks like. I think if he doesn't bothers with being mystique, why should he look for Cinderella?
[...] But on the the rare occasions it happens now people say "it must have been an arrangement!".(I am thinking of HGD Guillaume of Luxembourg and Countess Stephanie de Lannoy)[...]
But Meghan does mingle in the same circles as H. She and Harry have several mutual friends, both in London and in the US, one of whom reportedly introduced them. Eugenie is also a bridge between, as she too knows many in this circle.
Saying her divorce is a disadvantage, when the future King and Consort and 3/4 of HMs children are divorced, is ironic.
I don't see what's the problem with Meghan having strong opinions and beliefs. Personally, I think it's extremely important that someone has them because why else bother? The days where women were supposed to be obedient and soft are gone and thankfully they are.
I have always found it a shame that Kate has yet to find something that really gets her and is something that she wants to fight for. Mental health is shared with her husband and brother-in-law, it's not something that is entirely her. Not in the way micro-financing is Màxima's, or education for girls is Mary's.
Her work for the UN and charities speak for themselves. She has worked for her own money for years and is more than capable of supporting herself. She has passions and opinions and is a very good looking woman. Harry is doing well for himself here.
A lot of objections to her seem racially rooted, which is worrying. Besides the fact that she's going to receive a lot of hate for being bi-racial, she'd have to give up her career. Don't think many women should envy her for that position.
Yes, and that is precisely why I think prince Harry should set his standards higher. Just like his brother did.
sorry, but I don't think Kate has higher standards. She was plebeian, had no defined profession and childhood was middle class
Is it plebeian to come from a family where the parents have been happily married for decades, didn't cheat on their spouses, worked hard to build a good business, provided comfortable lifestyles and good educations for their children, and managed to raise dignified and impeccably-mannered adults?
The Middletons may be commoners (plebeian), but they certainly aren't common.