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 think the current Queen's sense of dedication is extraordinary, and is to be commended. I don't think anybody these days has any "hang in there" stuff like the kind she's shown.
But I don't think she or any of them are "nice people." I think they are all cold, blinkered assholes, as people. And I do actually believe that they wanted Diana out of the way and there is a margin of truth to the possibility that what happened that night was a series of events that could have been "curated," lets say, in order to bring on the outcome.
I'm not really interested in debating that, but that's what I think. It wouldn't have been the first time this has happened in that family.
They are also pretty lucky they're the ones on the throne -- this bloodline wasn't always the one that was going to be ruling now. They're a bunch of Germans; they're not actually completely British, by blood.
I don't like them, they have no use, and they're not even likeable people.
I think Diana's boys are better than the preceding generations but even they have bought into the Kool Aid of that family in a very disappointing way.
Sorry, but I don't think Diana was that much different. She knew how to play the game as well.
shareThey say the Windsors shapeshift into grotesque Reptilian creatures when nobody is looking! ππ πππ
shareNo. All royal families are proof that there's something wrong with the institution itself.
Harry does not seem cool or down-to-earth to me. He seems like he has a chip on his shoulder. He enjoys being reckless, inconsiderate and controversial and blames everyone for his problems except himself and his family. He's got a huge attitude even though he pretends to be just "one of the guys". He constantly whines about his life as a royal, while the solution is so simple. Just give up your position! I would actually respect him for it. William on the other hand seems more mature and in control of his emotions.
Strat, when you think about it (and I am sure that YOU have), how could he NOT have a chip on his shoulder? People have deferred to him and bowed to him for his entire life! They have called him "your Highness" and "your Majesty" entirely on the basis of his family tree, and not one whit on the basis of anything that he has achieved. Unless he has had some tutoring in how his view of the world is so vastly different from an average person's, he literally cannot understand how skewed is the way that he perceives life. I have many times seen how being born into privilege, instead of having earned it oneself, stunts a person's emotional and intellectual growth, unless the person's family cultivates and encourages (indeed, sometimes demands) that s/he becomes excellent. That's what the Kennedy family did with JFK, for example. The Windsors, on the other hand, need win no elections and have never been admired for their intellect, so I doubt that the princes are being groomed for anything more remarkable than being famous for being famous.
Life is not fair. Many who are not famous at all are born into wealth and privilege. There are families who are not "royal" in that they lack that most dubious credential, a royal title, but who have far more wealth and REAL power than the Windsors. I see no topics here, however, fawning over the duPonts or the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds. I have seen no one on either of the two Windsor-related topics on this site explain, in substantial terms, what exactly is so special about having inherited a royal title in the 21st century. And no, being "kinda cool" is not a mature explanation.
PS While I think the trash media's trailer-park adulation of Diana Spencer was as out-of-proportion
as a fist fight between Muhammad Ali and Porky Pig, I do think that she was easily the smartest and most cunning
family member the Windsors had in their bosom in . . . well . .
. probably EVER. My guess is that her genes were passed along to her sons.
PPS I just re-read Kawada's post, above, with which I concur, and enjoy. Would you like me to give you an example of the kind of person I think is true royalty? Anwar Sadat.
I do like Diana's kids, but we should stop our fascination with royalty and indoctrinating kids with princess stories that glorify wealth and perceived social status. Part of why people accept income inequality because they live vicariously through these people... but as far as making royalty as tolerable as one can... William and Harry have done a great job.
share