Note in the topic I said "royals" meaning the people that make up the royal family, not the institution of the British monarchy itself.
I like them, especially Prince Harry. He's really a cool, down-to-earth guy.
I don't even like the romanian royalty...they are a bunch of traitors.
shareNo. They come from an unremarkable gene pool and have nothing about themselves at all to recommend them to my attention. They are the epitome of the definition of "a celebrity": one who is famous for being famous. They are banality personified.
I can understand the fascination with royalty, TRUE royalty, not the inherited kind. I am definitely an elitist. Plato believed, and I share this belief, that there is a natural elite, and it is scattered across all strata of the human species. The members of this natural elite are not crowned. They crown themselves with their deeds. These are the people who deserve our attention.
I guess they're nice people, but I don't know, and I don't really care. The whole Royals institution is a quaint dinosaur.
😎
Princes William and Harry seem nice, but I'm not so sure about the rest. I do respect Queen Elizabeth and her dedication to the position and the country. The life she has can't be easy.
shareI find their history as a family interesting. There are several good documentaries on them on Netflix right now.
I don't know that I admire them, but I had always felt that many of them had sad lives.
I do have a good feeling about this younger generation. William and Harry seem to be doing things right.
Meaning what? I like you, Margo, but do see either of these guys doing anything REMARKABLE, hence, regal, royal? No. Their parents added nothing to the world. What the hell did Charles contribute? What the hell did Diana Spencer contribute? Her courageous stance against land mines? If these two princes are doing something right, it means they are staying out of the way of truly intelligent people who know what they are doing.
Monarchies are dead. Monarchist groupies are irrelevant, and boring.
By doing things right, I simply mean that this generation of men have chosen women they love.
Look at Prince Edward. Shame on him for wanting to marry Wallace Simpson! Gasp! A divorced woman! Look at Prince Charles and the way he was raised. He even allowed his elders to dictate the sort of woman he should marry.
I do think that Diana did some good. If not awareness of the land mines or treating people with Aids like human beings, she was a hands on mother, and she got out there and allowed people to see that these Royals were simply people, such as they are.... LOL!
Gone are the days of stodgy Pomp and Circumstance!
One more thing...
As far as Royalty goes, from where I sit, they are simply people who are lucky enough to know their family lineage. Many of us don't.
It's a shame that these folks hadn't learned from the mistakes of their ancestors.
Hopefully, this generation will be better.
By the way, I like you too. Your responses are usually always well thought out and intelligent. I only wish that I could organize my thoughts and feelings and put them down as well as you.
Thank you, but I think that you express yourself very well.
shareThe entire concept of royalty is repugnant to me, and I don't agree that individuals within it can just be separated from the institution they represent, this thing they were brought up in. They're elitism and reaction personified, an archaic feudal relic that has no place in the modern world. It's the 21st century, this shit should have been done away with long ago. If only Cromwell had succeeded in wiping the British monarchy out for good.
The only modern "royal" I can say that I like as a person is Souphanouvong. He was a prince in the Laotian royal family who sided with the people against his own class, his own social position, his own family, and fought for a revolution that successfully abolished the monarchy itself. That's the kind of "royal" I like, the kind that throws away their undeserved wealth and their titles and privileges and all the elitism and entitlement that goes with it, and throws their support behind a society where people don't inherit titles and privileges based on bloodline, where everyone is who they are on their own merits.
I never thought that I would come close to agreeing with you on any matter but here I agree on most points. Royalty pretty much walks hand in hand with extreme wealth. It's not the example to lead a population by when everyone else is told to make do with less. The world is not undiscovered and boundless unlike a couple of centuries ago when the European royals were the center of the world's power. We are stripping resources at a far greater rate than we are renewing them and the royals do nothing to dismiss the notion of "getting all a person can obtain." We need leaders who can walk the walk when it comes to social and economic change and not just make simple pronouncements followed by disappearing into their palaces to eat a meal, well, fit for a king. As to the OP's question I don't find anything appealing about any of the royals. It is easy to be charming when you are fat and happy but try it when your job is disappearing, your age is held against you in seeking a new career, and your frustration is signaled through how you are getting along with your spouse and kids. I know people that are far more charming while being under immense economic and social pressure.
shareThe world is better rid of all royalty, and especially now all oligarchs.
Workers of the world unite ... the only war worth fighting is the class war.
I am Spartacus!