Royal Gossip

The British Royal Family *Windsor* => HM Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip => Topic started by: misanthrocrat on December 13, 2018, 07:28:57 pm



Title: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 13, 2018, 07:28:57 pm
There has been a lot written about the democratization of Blue-Blood marriages. It started in the 20th century and has been growing ever since, peaking with MM.

We all know it is no longer uncommon for royalty and other "blue-bloods" to branch out of their natural circles to find partners. Not only do they do so but they do it   
with panache and showmanship, showing the world, from the top of their blue lungs, how democratic, inclusive and egalitarian they have become.

All right. Let's just say we all find this normal because, you know, 21st century.

Welcome to our world, the commoners!  And please, do have your pick. We have such a variety of options for you!

Now, I am not sure anyone has noticed this but there are many "walks of life" among commoners.
 
Commoners are not one monolithic, amorphic mass of identical souls, as the name seems to imply.
There are, in fact, numerous and very distinct hierarchies of substance among them.   

Some commoners have occupations that are particularly useful, noble and intrinsically admirable - considering how much value they add to life, every day. I'll call them Group A. 
Our world would be inconceivable without the incredible contributions of great engineers, scientists, architects, medical doctors, teachers, intellectuals, nurses but also many blue collar occupations. That's a fact - and not just some musings of "Enlightenment "thinkers.
 
Just the other day I was mulling over these very nicely-made kitchen gadgets I have (blender and a food processor) that literally allow me to do nutritional wonders at home in a matter of minutes. I couldn't help admiring the engineering minds that designed these fine gadgets and made them happen in my kitchen.
Never mind when I am in a plane. Good grief. Still can't wrap my mind around THAT thing. 

Then there are the type of commoners who function in Entertainment/ Mass-media / PR / Financial market related occupations  - without which society may be different (many argue MUCH better), but surely not unlivable. I'll call them Group B.
 
Entertainers, athletes, so-called "artists", photographers, journalists-turned-manipulators, talking heads, financial speculators, etc.
It is not unusual for such occupations to attract commoners of dubious character and vanity, without a whole lot of substance, and inclined towards NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). 

As a poster somewhere once very simply put it - I have needed a plumber, an engineer, a doctor, a teacher. I have never needed an entertainer, athlete or journalist.

So I have a question.
Has anyone noticed how these modern royal families INVARIABLY pick commoners to marry (and catapult to the top over night) from Group B but never from Group A?

How in the world do they end up with rugby players, celebrities, "artists", shady business people - but never with a doctor, professor or architect?

Granted - when you hear them speak, you kind of figure out why. 
Intellectually and morally, Group A would tower over them. They would never be able to able to live up to the standards of Group A. Which would make them feel more uncomfortable and insignificant than they've become accustomed to. 
So they find more compatible company in the clearly inferior Group B, to begin with. 

It is just so ironic that "Elites" who are supposed to be the supreme supporters of Excellence, Goodness, and Height prefer to associate and breed with shady commoner types as opposed to those who literally make this world a better place every day.
Genetically speaking, they are making a big mistake - unless the only genes they are concerned with are those that ensure tight, skinny bodies. 
 
Had they kept it strictly to their blue-blood silos, the old-fashioned way,  I would have understood. It's natural. We all mingle with "people like us" - it's our comfort zone. But why do they favor population B in the commoner world?     

Maybe it's because they've degenerated so badly and have distanced themselves so much from the Elite standards they are supposed to represent, that they are now only attracted to intellectually and morally inferior good-for-nothings and speculators.
Since in our corrupt word, these are the types who can bring in a significant enough extra buck to the Royal Wallet, through financial speculation or selling crap or illusions to the stupid masses - that's even better. 

They are simply attracted to their inferior commoner equivalents.
 
As a monarchist, I could not despise them enough. 
 


 


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 13, 2018, 07:44:57 pm
^ Queen Maxima of the Netherlands worked in the private banking sector for years before her marriage and works for the UN in the area of micro-management of funds in the Third World. She was marketing manager for a private bank in Europe and the US. Queen Letizia of Spain was a respected journalist in Spain and filed reports at times from war zones. Queen Mathilde of Belgium worked for many years before she married as a speech therapist in her native country. These are just three off the top of my head who went from university into professions. I'm sure there are more, especially in the Netherlands royal family, but haven't time to look it up.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 13, 2018, 08:10:06 pm
Banking, journalism, etc.
I place that in Group B.

I am not arguing those are not legitimate occupations where work actually happens. It has to because people are given things to do, regardless of how they get a paycheck. 

I am  simply pointing out to a much more nuanced aspect of "commoner substance".

Those are not necessarily occupations reputed to attract the highest breed of commoners. Not if you look at complexity and difficulty of the profession, requirements for perseverance, strength of character and long-term commitment.
 
Many park themselves in "interim" occupations until they stumble upon a sweet marriage situation (usually women) or a major amount of money made fast via financial  speculation (usually men).

Generally speaking, the highest profile blue-blood marriages I see are those with commoners having had some activity in Group B professions - never in Group A.
Until they step into a sweet lifestyle and then they turn Charity Belles.

 


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 13, 2018, 08:44:48 pm
Quote
Some commoners have occupations that are particularly useful, noble and intrinsically admirable - considering how much value they add to life, every day. I'll call them Group A.
Our world would be inconceivable without the incredible contributions of great engineers, scientists, architects, medical doctors, teachers, intellectuals, nurses but also many blue collar occupations. That's a fact - and not just some musings of "Enlightenment "thinkers.

Thing is, people with these amazing careers do not want to leave them to walk two steps behind a man/woman and basically be ornamental. It takes a HUGE amount of self sacrifice and the rewards once they pay off become too good to throw away. Medical doctors, nurses, and architects study like crazy and frankly they don't want to just toss it all away. Respect and prestige come along with it and a lot of doctors would lose respect, hard earned respect if they were to quit for a prince. They also prefer to enjoy a life that doesn't bring them into contact with too many princes. Royals these days prefer the jet set hot spots and prefer to live a life of partying. You don't see partiers in medicine and architecture (at least not in the way that royals party) and too many royals are far too vapid.

^ Queen Maxima of the Netherlands worked in the private banking sector for years before her marriage and works for the UN in the area of micro-management of funds in the Third World. She was marketing manager for a private bank in Europe and the US. Queen Letizia of Spain was a respected journalist in Spain and filed reports at times from war zones. Queen Mathilde of Belgium worked for many years before she married as a speech therapist in her native country. These are just three off the top of my head who went from university into professions. I'm sure there are more, especially in the Netherlands royal family, but haven't time to look it up.

True, but Mathilde was the only one with a noncontroversial past and she was titled already before her marriage. Maxima's father was part of an elite that made up a junta that imprisoned and tortured others while Letizia was formerly a republican who marreid another man in a civil ceremony and then divorced him.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 16, 2018, 05:32:43 am
^ Thank you for your thoughts, Kuei Fei.
To be honest with you, I would have to respectfully and gently disagree that type A commoners would never want to leave their amazing careers for which they studied and worked like crazy (they do indeed) just to go be a royal. A "mere" royal. :-)

Perhaps few realize that there is such thing as the glamorization and idealization of professional life.
First off, there's not a single professional in this world today who does only things they are passionate about or for which they feel drive, intense interest and pleasure all the time.
Ask doctors how much time they spend actually practicing medicine and taking time with their patients and how much of it is just rush, stress, paperwork, electronic records, etc. Ask teachers how much time they spend actually teaching and how much they have to deal with bureaucratic guidelines, paperwork and discipline issues, e-mails. A good chunk of most professionals' work lives today involves answering useless e-mails.   Most are overworked, overpstressed and would retire quickly if they could.

Even assuming that some of these professionals have a perfect position where they get to do mostly what they've trained for and dreamed of.
Believe it - it gets old. Even the most glamorous, high-skill career gets sour at some point when you have to deal with it day-in-and-day-out.
Moreover, such people are always trapped in a career trajectory that must be followed without interruptions. They tend to be strongly penalized, professionally speaking, if they take breaks from it.

Speaking for the US at least, have you noticed how few older doctors are out there? Most push hard while they're reasonably young so they can build a large nest-egg and then get the H out.
The professions are no longer the brainy-glamorous occupations they are perceived to be.    

They're increasingly difficult with ever more requirements, require enormous exertion for too long, and they are drowned in ugly bureaucracy and high stress.

I can guarantee you there would be plenty of such Type A people who would happily leave their professional life behind to go have a royal one instead.

That being said, given how royals have degenerated - as you correctly pointed out to their vapid, jetset, partying lifestyles - such Type A people would probably not find satisfactory company in royalty. And the other way around.
My point was that these populations are now more incompatible than they've ever been.  
 


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 16, 2018, 04:00:36 pm
I blame the royals, not the 'commoners' for this. With their resources, they should be better educated, better traveled (not just to the jet set locales), and better behaved. As for the stress of a top level career, I give you that, but really, better than being treated dismissively as a vapid ornament and not a respectable part of any team. Imagine being a brainless ornament and being that way for the rest of one's life; after adolescence, it can cause serious problems mainly since they never are able to grow into fully well rounded adults. I believe the royals of this generation are not willing to work twice as hard to prove that they have the smarts and ability to help run things. They stupidly want the perks and trust handed to them without putting in hard work to actually earn that trust, much less be taken seriously.

These days, most heads of state come from modest means, are twice as smart, and of course have had to work ten times as hard just to earn a degree, much less end up getting elected and living half as well as a born royal has. It's not like a born royal has shown that they have the zest to learn and cultivate themselves and it's not like they are willing to do what it takes to look after their country's interests. People with genuine drive and self respect are too busy building their lives just to get to square one and I am dead sure that it would be tiring being a 'support' system to someone who never had to think hard, much less work hard for all they have. It's not like the royals run the country (with the exception of the Arabs) and it's not like they even have to fend for themselves.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 17, 2018, 03:34:25 pm
It was odd that William and Harry were not involved with other European princes and princesses and appeared to be isolated unless there were big events where they only saw the other royals briefly.  So any chance of them marrying princesses from other countries was greatly reduced. Plus aristos did not want their daughters to be humiliated like one of their own (Lady Diana) was and did not encourage marrying into a family where the mistresses trashed the wife and ultimately ousted them. So therefore the commoners were chosen as brides. One did not have any proper job and was treated as the "vessel" who "might" marry a royal if she was available near the phone all the time for his phone call.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 17, 2018, 03:42:16 pm
Neither prince want to bother trying to build ties with their titled European peers. Neither bothered even learning much about them and it is clear that each prince thought that they were entitled to have eligible women shipped in for inspection and it is clear that as a result, only women like Kate and Meg were willing.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 17, 2018, 06:16:54 pm
It was odd that William and Harry were not involved with other European princes and princesses and appeared to be isolated unless there were big events where they only saw the other royals briefly.  So any chance of them marrying princesses from other countries was greatly reduced. Plus aristos did not want their daughters to be humiliated like one of their own (Lady Diana) was and did not encourage marrying into a family where the mistresses trashed the wife and ultimately ousted them. So therefore the commoners were chosen as brides. One did not have any proper job and was treated as the "vessel" who "might" marry a royal if she was available near the phone all the time for his phone call.

Hmm.That's an interesting angle. I didn't realize these guys may not have been as popular in Aristo circles.

Then again, they had their pick from the tremendous variety of commoners...and boy, did they pick or what.

Commoners have not all been created equal (despite what the US Constitution would have us believe  :lie: )
 


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 17, 2018, 08:01:20 pm
I think neither prince were wanted mainly since their life's path was so different; more aristocratic women (almost all really) are career oriented and it's not like they all want to go out boozing/clubbing in their twenties. Second, the BRF has become notorious for their mistreatment of consorts. Third, Camilla got the ring and so it is an established fact that mistresses can not only get away with tormenting the wives and driving them out of their church sanctioned marriages (while having the blame heaped on them), but in time the mistress will get the ring, the tiara, a blessing, then a PR campaign to begin abusing the rep of the previous consort. So really, what possible benefit is there to dating either prince, much less marrying one of them? When you throw in the abuse that any woman would get if she didn't fit the fairy-tale mode, it is something that certainly would incur the abuse of the press. Remember, once Kate latched on, the press made it clear that she was THEIR choice and anyone who dared even SPEAK to William would get flamed and of course, if the woman in question was titled, said woman would be driven out of the nation.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 17, 2018, 08:22:02 pm
I remember Hello Magazine had an open letter to William begging him to "Take Kate back."


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 17, 2018, 09:15:09 pm
More aristocratic women (almost all really) are career oriented and it's not like they all want to go out boozing/clubbing in their twenties.

I agree with the second part; I highly doubt the latter.

Aristocratic women whose families still have significant wealth are not knocking down the doors of "professional life".
I am not saying they may not employed in socially sparkly, largely hedonistic, light-weight type of occupations (Art curation, PR, Media, Journalism, Fashion, Modeling, Event Planning, Politics, etc).

I just do not believe any aristocratic women invest in intellectually demanding careers.

All careers have not been created equal. Just like commoners. :-)

Serious professions that provide heavy value to society involve years of maximum exertion and tedious, steady, rigorous toiling.
They are exhausting and not glamorous at all.
Just because they are not done in a coal mine doesn't mean such careers don't border downright slavery.

You won't see any aristocratic woman going into medicine, science, engineering, law, research, academia - and developing a serious career within  these parameters. The reality is these are too difficult. And who wants to live difficult lives other than people who have no other route for upper social mobility?
These are your middle and upper-middle classes with cream-of-the-crop genetics and who can withstand the rigors of tough careers in exchange of a chance to build wealth and solidify status.

There are extremely few people who go into these heavy-weight professions purely for passion.
If that was so, you would see some aristocrats having a go at them too.
I am yet to hear of a surgeon or engineer with aristocratic roots. 
   


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 17, 2018, 09:32:08 pm
Fully agree, but thing is, that these aristos do not need a prince to secure their own financial future and I am certain that at this point, royals in Europe do as the press tells them and the press wants the fairy-tale, not someone who inspires actual respect. When the press is outright ordering William to take Kate back, it is celar that these titled women wouldn't stand a chance. Life is too short to put up with press abuse and by god, the press and public wanted that fairy-tale! There was no way that the press was going to allow Jecca or anyone else to interfere in their idea of a genuine royal romance.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 17, 2018, 09:45:54 pm
^ Very good points. I can absolutely see that.

Would the public want to see an aristo marrying a surgeon or some girl "next door" (who may have also happened to make some money, somehow - her or her family).  

I have noticed there's a widespread perception among the masses (particularly in the US) that individuals in heavy-weight and relatively well-paid professions like medicine and or law are "the rich / the upper classes".

Many are so far from the upper-middle strata, let alone the actual upper classes - that they lump together the two categories calling them "the rich".
Never mind there is a world of difference in lifestyle between these two categories.
  
    


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 17, 2018, 11:51:50 pm
^^^ 'Yet to hear of a surgeon or engineer with aristocratic roots?

Dr Penelope Law is consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at the prestigious Portland Hospital in London. She is also the Countess of Bradford.

Lady Katie Percy (the daughter of the Duke of Northumberland, served an apprenticeship at Purdey's, the leading British gunmakers. Apprenticeships in Britain take years to complete. That requires precision and engineering skills. She later became a self-employed gun stock maker.

The heir to the Duke of Gloucester married Dr Claire Booth, from an old country gentry family in Cheshire. She is a paediatric consultant, with MBBS, MSc and PhD degrees.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2018, 12:25:49 am
Good point. Lady Kate Percy is someone who would have been ideal, or Jecca, but these days, the press wanted a Hallmark fairy-tale and with the fairy-tale narrative and I am certain that as long as this fairy-tale BS narrative is allowed to become part of reality, royals will never be able to find and date and eventually marry someone of quality. With the modern mentality, Princess Diana never would have been able to marry Prince Charles, she would have been driven out of Britain since the tabloids would NEVER have wanted a tall, blonde, blue eyed titled lady with only a finishing school education. Oh no, the press would have demanded some snotty university graduate with as slatternly a past as possible and would have demanded that Charles marry some physicist who he had nothing in common with.

^ Very good points. I can absolutely see that.

I have noticed there's a widespread perception among the masses (particularly in the US) that individuals in heavy-weight and relatively well-paid professions like medicine and or law are "the rich / the upper classes".

Many are so far from the upper-middle strata, let alone the actual upper classes - that they lump together the two categories calling them "the rich".
Never mind there is a world of difference in lifestyle between these two categories.

Thing is, a prince can only go so far down and they have more free time than the usual career focused young women and so therefore, the only monied types they meet are either socialites or they're vapid airheads who have parents who will pay for them to be able to chase a prince or they're Sofia types.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 01:35:43 am
^ Rosella,

Good to hear. Then these people are symbols of what aristocracy ideally should be.
However, this is not what the modern public sees about aristocracy nowadays.
Who in the world has heard of Lady Kate Percy? Maybe we should have.

In a technologically advanced world, anyone who is not the actual monarch in the business of ruling, should be doing something of real value - not just being a charity belle or playboy with panache, "championing" causes.
By the way, how much effort or brain does it take to "champion" something? How about doing it directly? 
 
Given the resources the aristocracy has access to - not just wealth to catch you if your endeavors fail and ample time for growth and self-development, but also access to breed with the best genetic stock possible - given all this...they could have turned themselves, as a group, into models of excellence in society.
It's good to hear of cases who choose to do so.

Most, however, don't. This is why the best they can produce, generally speaking, is charity belles and beaus - many with "dumb" written all over their face.
 
I don't have empirical data and statistically significant findings to back up my statements, obviously; but I would go out on a limb to argue most are the kind I mentioned, not of Lady Percy's kind.

Kuei Fei nails it, as usual.
It's all about pleasing the modern, democratic crowds who demand their Hallmark Fairy-Tale in the age of unconditional egalitarianism.
They didn't use to. They knew people in high places typically marry other people of high caliber.   
 
Now, the dumb public revels in real life stories where good-for-nothings giant-climb through "serendipitous" (to be read well-planned) encounters with princes or princesses, which saves them from an undignified, meaningless life - usually a natural result of their own mediocrity or sub-mediocrity.   

Fueling such illusions and encouraging fraudulent social climbing at the societal level is very toxic.
 It causes nothing but massive social unrest, distrust, cunning competition and ultimately, a miserable life for most people.


   


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 18, 2018, 02:20:07 am
The Percy family of Ailnwick (Harry Potter territory) are well known in Britain. Kate Percy and her sister Melissa were part of the young royals' circle. She and Melissa and her husband Valentine were seen quite often with them at social events. Her brother George, Earl Percy, was equally well known as a friend of Pippa Middleton for many years since their university days together. Chelsy Davy (Harry's ex) and Kate were bridal attendants at Missy Percy's wedding when she married Tom van Straubenzee (one of the Cambridge children's godparents.) Harry was a groomsman at that wedding.

Aristocrats, both British and otherwise, aren't one big homogeneous lump. There are some who are wastes of space, some who've achieved quite a lot in different spheres and others who work quietly for many years trying to preserve the estates and country houses their ancestors built up centuries before. Gerald Duke of Westminster for example was an achiever.  They are certainly not all 'dumb', nor, would I suggest, are the majority.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: YooperModerator on December 18, 2018, 02:28:51 am
^That’s a very small bubble, really.  It’s unfortunate that these remarkable people do not receive the same level of global acclaim vs someone swinging in on a wrecking ball.  The social experiment we are experiencing now negates any hope of that changing anytime soon, sadly.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2018, 02:34:58 am
Yooper, at some point this kind of situation becomes unsustainable. What still shocks me to the core is how low William fell compared to how he might have been, how good he might have had it.

Quote
In a technologically advanced world, anyone who is not the actual monarch in the business of ruling, should be doing something of real value - not just being a charity belle or playboy with panache, "championing" causes.
By the way, how much effort or brain does it take to "champion" something? How about doing it directly?

Ironically, in the pre-Georgian/Regency era, heirs to thrones were among the most heavily educated in the world. Many knew multiple languages, memorized philosophers, spent a lot of time outside of the court running their own principality (living at Ludlow, Wales, as the usual places where princes of wales would go) and learning how to handle officials. When they were at the main court, they would defer to the monarch/consort and make a show of respect and deference. It seems to me that it all went out the window once the Hanoverian era commenced and heirs to thrones just got into the habit of idling around making a mess of their private lives. That is why they were educated in their palaces, so they could learn the relevant topics while avoiding the distraction of the Middleton types. They knew the value of their role and learned accordingly and willingly.

Quote
They didn't use to. They knew people in high places typically marry other people of high caliber.  

Comes as a kind of comfort that people married at their own level and second, with the way people of good merit can move up in the world, I am dead certain that this is how most revolutions are avoided. I am also certain that if William and Harry had been raised right, they would both be better men. I'm just glad we're past the era when women could only move up via marriage, via a 'good marriage.'

Quote
Now, the dumb public revels in real life stories where good-for-nothings giant-climb through "serendipitous" (to be read well-planned) encounters with princes or princesses, which saves them from an undignified, meaningless life - usually a natural result of their own mediocrity or sub-mediocrity.

I wonder how different things would be if the palaces did not hide the ugly pasts of these consorts. It would have been intriguing to see how the public would react if they knew all about Kate's yacht days, or Pippa's gun scandal or perhaps they knew about Kate's Uncle's business dealings in full. Or maybe about the reality of the 'family business' that keeps the Middletons in funds.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 03:57:29 am
^Pippa's gun business?
It's a lot I don't know, apparently - but whatever it is, I am not surprised.

Without having any technical details about Middletons' business, something in this success story NEVER added up for me.
You start an online business with ...what? Paper plates and plastic cups for parties?...And you end up with the kind of fortune where you can keep your children in the poshest of schools, mingling with the highest of the high in the UK? All right, then.  

I find this rather...how can I put it...light.
Something desn't add up for me. I wonder what  reality lies behind this cute story of success whose believability seems to have been designed for IQ-s of 90 and below.

Curious to hear more if anyone has anything to add or link to.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 18, 2018, 05:02:25 am
Michael Middleton's middleclass family were quite wealthy and successful, thanks to a legal firm in the 19th century and subsequent investments, plus marriage into the Lupton textile fortune in Yorkshire.  There was a family trust fund which paid for Kate, Pippa and James's educational expenses, including university.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 05:15:23 am
^ So the cost of private school was not covered from the "paper plates and cups" business.
 
They had such a significant trust fund from a 19th century generation yet they were originally working in positions such as "flight attendant" and "air trafic controller"?
At least, this was my understanding.
In all honesty, people who have significant trust funds dating back to the 19th century don't ever end up in such occupations. 

My knowledge may be very rudimentary but here's the superficial story the public knows: Middletons were middle class, regular people with full-time jobs.
Then they suddenly left their jobs to turn entrepreneurs and put together this "Party Pieces" business which made them rich. Yey.
People are aware of some vague discussions about Michael's wealthier roots but their position is advertised as largely "self-made".

Or maybe this is what Americans want to hear...

Nah. It still doesn't add up. 

 


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 18, 2018, 05:33:50 am
Michael Middleton was going to be a pilot. He went to training school to be one, as his father had been. However, he switched to being a flight despatcher midway through the course. It was Carole Goldsmith who was a flight attendant. I don't know how much money the Middleton trust fund produced for the Middletons. I do know however that Michael and his brothers all went to Clifton public (private) school. Clifton wasn't a school for working class kids. I also know that the Luptons were quite an industrial and political dynasty in Leeds in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Their fortune and social doings are very well documented online.

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8164731/How-a-Victorian-industrialist-helped-Kate-Middletons-parents.html


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 06:06:22 am
So not really self-made.

Well, this confirms my theory that a truly good life is NEVER made in one life span.
Just like "it takes a village"...it also takes a few generations with long-term thinking for that snow-ball to roll and finally be "fat and happy".
Success within one life span it's still a life of strife and struggle - regardless of the level of success attained.

It's gotta build up slowly, over a few generations. 

As cunning and scheming as the Middletons may be...goodness, did they play the cards right for their children or what.
You've got to give them that, as parents.
If we all had parents like this...well... I guess nobody would get anything done, so never mind. 

I just tend to take more dislike towards parents who unassumingly pour on children into this world, offer them the basics - roof and food - until they turn official adults, then wish them good luck on the job market, all while the world population and competition for limited resources is growing at dizzying rates.

I am a bit busier disliking this parental prototype than the planning, long-term thinking Middletons.
Well done there. That's all I can say.
   
     


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Val on December 18, 2018, 08:01:25 am
The Middleton trust wasn’t that great and their initial PP success was due to ma Midds and her determination to rise above her sink estate and working class background.  According to those close and villagers she isn’t a very nice person, said to be quite nasty and for this reason gets so much flack at her social climbing skills and her lack of social graces.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 18, 2018, 01:57:17 pm
I truly think Carole wants her son James to marry a blue blood. So she'd have two such in laws in her family


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2018, 02:05:46 pm
Of course. Carole only wants the best for her worthless spud and she surely has fantasies of creating a lineal MIddleton dynasty via her son.

The Middleton trust wasn’t that great and their initial PP success was due to ma Midds and her determination to rise above her sink estate and working class background.

Don't forget Uncle Gary funding their campaign for that ring via selling 'young and fresh' children and pushing drugs on people to create new addicts. Drug and sex trafficking money is ample and for some reason, William didn't think that there was anything shady about lots of money insofar as a lot of money was coming in.

So not really self-made.

Well, this confirms my theory that a truly good life is NEVER made in one life span.
Just like "it takes a village"...it also takes a few generations with long-term thinking for that snow-ball to roll and finally be "fat and happy".
Success within one life span it's still a life of strife and struggle - regardless of the level of success attained.
It's gotta build up slowly, over a few generations.  

As cunning and scheming as the Middletons may be...goodness, did they play the cards right for their children or what.
You've got to give them that, as parents.
If we all had parents like this...well... I guess nobody would get anything done, so never mind.  

I just tend to take more dislike towards parents who unassumingly pour on children into this world, offer them the basics - roof and food - until they turn official adults, then wish them good luck on the job market, all while the world population and competition for limited resources is growing at dizzying rates.

I am a bit busier disliking this parental prototype than the planning, long-term thinking Middletons.
Well done there. That's all I can say.

Truth be told, I admire how the Midds operate as one tribe and work like a team, but the thing is, that the Middletons will never let a successful person forget that they helped and there is always that hanging over Kate's head. Kate has had to help her family along and get favors and perks for them and frankly it's not like any of the three Middleton siblings actually stood on their own two feet. Kate was supported due to the belief that Kate would land the ring. Once she did, she was expected to help her sister along, she did, and I am certain that she didn't like it, but she owed her mother and siblings for all the help they gave and I am certain that they have never let her forget it.

Kate made sure her mother/father had the prime seats, made sure her brother and sister had prominent roles in the ceremonial, and made certain that she had her sister plan the wedding, made sure her sister was placed near Harry exiting the cathedral and on the balcony, then of course there were invites to the various state occasions and so on and so forth. Kate has repaid her family and worked to make sure that other royals attended her sister's wedding. It's not like Kate has been able to move on and leave her family behind and actually live a new life of her own.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 03:40:29 pm
^
I see that - but I would not have considered normal for Kate to do that.
I consider normal for her to do exactly what she did and repay what parents have done for her. Yes, there are strings attached in this world - and this is fine. It makes for fine, mafia-like work and certainly places those who practice it at a serious advantage. More could learn. Individualism only works for those who promote it for others while they continue to practice the clan/tribal way for themselves.

For themselves, as a clan - the Midds played all of their cards right. To a T.

That being said, not in a million years do I believe that all of their pre-W funds came from some "trust fund" with roots in the 19th century and some profits from selling paper plates online. Because suddenly people couldn't go to the grocery stop to grab some there .? ...they decided to buy party paper plates online from the Midds, in drones?
That's weird no matter how you twist it.

There's more to the funds that allowed them to catapult their children to the U.K. Social stratosphere - which is more like the mother of all social stratospheres.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 18, 2018, 04:35:52 pm
It was not a sure thing by any means that Kate would "marry in." She had to go out and campaign to win William back. Every Thursday night like clockwork for a few weeks there she would be at a club, in shorter skirts with other men.

The Midds might have had hefty mortgages and I think Uncle Gary helped bail them out.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: YooperModerator on December 18, 2018, 04:41:22 pm
I'm not going to make a big thing out of it but be mindful that this is not the Middleton family thread.  Broaden the discussion, plz.  We've trampled the Midds talk to death.  Thanks, YM


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 18, 2018, 04:44:19 pm
I'll raise another topic. In past times, would born in Princesses like Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie have been expected to marry aristos and not commoners? Would this be encouraged in the future for them to aim to marry aristos?


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2018, 05:35:27 pm
I think so. Unfortunately a lot of the time, the Windsors themselves do not offer much in the way of proving that they'll become good spouses to live with. It would be rough enough having to deal with a loss of conventional privacy, but thing is, marriage to the royals as people themselves would not at all be appealing. Princess Anne has shown herself to take herself way too seriously (looking down on Diana for showing proper deference) and marriage to the Yorkies would strain any wallet and strain any temper. Throw in William and Harry and it's clear that marriage to them as people in themselves is something else.

The Yorkies have shown that they prefer a jet set lifestyle and expect to be taken care of in lavish palatial style. Just to provide what they are used to is going to cost a lot and that is money that too many billionaires work too hard for. As someone who is self made, a businesswoman, I can honestly say that it would cause HUGE resentment that having to work so hard and come so far, that with someone like a Windosr, I would be at square one with them in terms of the lifestyle I would provide. A lifestyle of opulence and extravagance is what the Yorkies are accustomed to and it would not impress them or make them grateful.

I just think that this recent generation has been badly raised and regrettably the older generation let them get away with things that never would have been tolerated in the older generation and never should have been tolerated. I often wondered WHY there were so many strictures and regulations against what we think of as 'normal,' but now I realize that given the immensity of the privilege and power they have the ability to wield, they have to be able to handle it from an early age. The Yorkies and Wales boys and even Anne's children were not at all required to show the respect that HM deserves and it has been a huge mistake.

The 'younger generation' of royals were allowed to have the relaxed standards of normal kids, but regrettably, they were not at all required to earn perks and even respect like normal kids. 'Normal' to them is life of the upper one percent, not the even higher level they were born at and regrettably they were allowed to mix with the jet set Eurotrash and mooch around and get a token 'education' and then proceed to just loaf around. None of them were told to get an education that would actually be useful to their role and that would present them well on the world stage and second, they were allowed to expect it all to be handed to them.

Given that the Yorkies expected to do duties (and little else) they both just loafed around as teens, did a routine university round of schooling, and then expected to graduate into doing jet set duties while getting millions from everyone around them. Frankly, I don't blame Charles for not wanting them to do duties and live off of him. It's not right that either get even more than they already have, which is more than most will ever experience in a lifetime. Imagine being married to either Yorkie and being expected to provide an affluent life that they're used to and being forced to support them after working many years to just build it for oneself.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 07:21:45 pm
^
"The 'younger generation' of royals were allowed to have the relaxed standards of normal kids, but regrettably, they were not at all required to earn perks and even respect like normal kids".

Normal kids are no longer required to earn respect either.  Normal kids today are raised in horribly lax ways, by parents and community at large - which turns them into obnoxious, entitled, tiring brats. Most children are like this today if the yardstick is children prior to the 1960's. I am saying this as a parent who has often had to throw hands up in the air when my traditional ways were literally drowned by the "normal" ways of the larger community which children see, take notes of and internalize, regardless of the direction the parents set. I mean ...look at QE and her children, never  mind grand-children.  Why didn't they copy her? Because children prefer to copy the "spirit of their times" instead of their parents. 
 
The trouble is that instead of honoring and preserving the traditional, dignified parenting ways that have stood the test of time (101 duty for any monarchy) - these royals too, just like regular people, jumped on the bandwagon of modernity. Lord Forbid should they be considered "dated" by the new cool kids in town.

Great points about money too. Self-made money are hard money. You never forget the strain and fatigue as long as you live.
Even if you made them doing something you love and your business just boomed over night - the strife and sense of competition are still there. Never mind most self-made people don't make their money by ONLY doing things they love, every day. Never mind constantly trying to keep the competition and detractors at bay. 

I am not denying that living the jet-set, easy, ascribed-status lifestyle is not pleasurable. Anyone would want to live like this if they could help it because virtually everyone likes pleasure and no ones likes strife.
Exceptions include the rare driven geniuses who simply can't live without pursuing their obsessive passions - but even those get pleasure out of their behavior. Everyone else toils regularly because they must. Otherwise the overgrown organic human system collapses.  This is why it's called "work with a schedule". 

That being said, just because we would all go for "easy and hedo" if we had their chance, doesn't mean a self-made person would have to sympathize and tolerate "mooching off" from the few lucky ones.
It is nauseating and revolting for the person who had to strive for what they have (usually not that much). 
 
This is why I have ambivalent feelings about someone like Diana.

On the one hand, I cannot deny she had an adorable innocence, authenticity and ability to be herself exactly due to the fact that she never had to worry about a thing or compete for position or resources with anyone (unless you count the competition with Camilla over husband).
Her inherited privilege allowed her a perfectly secure, dignified life all while being a complete ditz. 
Being demolished as a result of comparisons with others never apply to someone like her. (They do apply to the rest of us).
This can make for a very refreshing, fun, sincere person to be around or look at. What you see is what you get.

On the other hand, I could never fully sympathize with or assign any sort of merit or sincere admiration to such people.
They are simply lucky creatures whom God chose to spare of strife for some reasons only He understands. So I choose to leave it at that.
But I don't LOVE God's apparent pets. Maybe they're not His pets but it sure does look like that from here.
The vast majority of humans don't love them either, even those who ooh, ahhh and go ga-ga over them, desperately wanting to convey they don't have a jealous bone in their body. 
When they do so, they simply express their subconscious fantasy that it could have been them.   
   


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 18, 2018, 07:34:25 pm
The aristos who married into the family did see how large households were run and what servants were needed, customs and so on. It did stand them in good stead when they married in.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2018, 09:17:34 pm

At least an aristo would have brought knowledge of how to behave to the table. Kate and Meg are clearly uncouth and were not raised with manners.

Quote
On the one hand, I cannot deny she had an adorable innocence, authenticity and ability to be herself exactly due to the fact that she never had to worry about a thing or compete for position or resources with anyone (unless you count the competition with Camilla over husband).
Her inherited privilege allowed her a perfectly secure, dignified life all while being a complete ditz.
Being demolished as a result of comparisons with others never apply to someone like her. (They do apply to the rest of us).
This can make for a very refreshing, fun, sincere person to be around or look at. What you see is what you get.

On the other hand, I could never fully sympathize with or assign any sort of merit or sincere admiration to such people.
They are simply lucky creatures whom God chose to spare of strife for some reasons only He understands. So I choose to leave it at that.
But I don't LOVE God's apparent pets. Maybe they're not His pets but it sure does look like that from here.
The vast majority of humans don't love them either, even those who ooh, ahhh and go ga-ga over them, desperately wanting to convey they don't have a jealous bone in their body.
When they do so, they simply express their subconscious fantasy that it could have been them.   

I think Diana 'being her authentic self' was what was the reason she ended up dead prematurely. By 36 and at the time of her divorce, she should have  been more careful, but she made the mistake of throwing herself into another affair, this time without paying attention to the fact that she was messing with a married man. She had no business not doing her research and she had no business screwing a married man while believing that he would leave his wife for her. Then there was Dodi, who was engaged to a model Kelly Fisher; for some reason Diana was not viewed with disgust for messing with yet another established relationship. Being oneself is all well and good, but the thing is, that she wasn't growing up in ways that would have saved her life in the end. If she had researched the Fayeds and realized that Dodi was committed elsewhere, I am sure she might have thought twice about running around with him right away. Or if she had understood the trauma that Camilla caused her by being her husband's mistress, she might have understood what hurt she would cause someone if she had messed with Hoare. All she ever had to do was stop and think things through for once and decide to take the right path and choose to do thing that would cause the least amount of hurt to other people.

I also think that it is possible to be an authentic self if one decides to mature and grow up and think ahead and also stop messing with the lives of other people. Diana never learned that via being her 'authentic self' and that is how she kept getting into messes. There is a difference between being 'authentic' and being a mature adult and Diana never became the adult that she should have been by age 36, plus her experience. Diana was being immature and selfish, that is not being authentic (unless she was a fundamentally selfish and immature person).

Quote
"The 'younger generation' of royals were allowed to have the relaxed standards of normal kids, but regrettably, they were not at all required to earn perks and even respect like normal kids".

Normal kids are no longer required to earn respect either.  Normal kids today are raised in horribly lax ways, by parents and community at large - which turns them into obnoxious, entitled, tiring brats. Most children are like this today if the yardstick is children prior to the 1960's. I am saying this as a parent who has often had to throw hands up in the air when my traditional ways were literally drowned by the "normal" ways of the larger community which children see, take notes of and internalize, regardless of the direction the parents set. I mean ...look at QE and her children, never  mind grand-children.  Why didn't they copy her? Because children prefer to copy the "spirit of their times" instead of their parents.


Most normal kids do not have military trained security officers and do not have taxpayer funded private transport or are able to get oligarchs to give them free yacht trips. They also do not have the ability to get MI6 to give them info on people and do not have the ability to push the media  around via threats.

These royals have too much power at too young of an age and also too much money and too much adulation. Regrettably, they were not raised (at this critical turning point in history) to handle it responsibly and therefore, I am dead sure this is never going to turn out well. It never does. I understand now why the Yorkies are being cut out, mainly since it is clear that neither have any real work ethic, they are just drifting through life. Frankly I believe that none of the recent generation are equipped to handle a part time job, much less direct the monarchy. Clearly none of them have been raised how they should have and none of them are willing to learn anything.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 18, 2018, 09:36:22 pm
^ Unfortunately, the royal kids probably have all the looseness and self-centered-ness of the regular, modern kids + all the mega-privileges and perks you mentioned.
That makes for some perfect storm of "Mega-Yuck".

You are correct about Diana. My comments about her authenticity regarded mainly the way she came across on cameras, in interaction, etc.
She was not a fake. You did not feel that nauseating, hyper-competitive phony-ness and wannne-be-ism that most modern people either exude or are forced to put up with in their every day environments.
You see that syndrome perfectly in the body language of the likes of MM; or if you really need to sample closer to home, try a few "beloved" colleagues in the workplace.
They "How are You??!!!" their co-workers with the biggest grin on their faces, yet would love to back-stab you as soon as they get a chance so they can get ahead.

This nauseating vibe was simply not there when you watched Diana -  because she never competed in any way, with anybody, and she had NOTHING to prove.
This, in itself, can be incredibly refreshing in the modern world. 

You are correct, however, in pointing to her clear lack of maturity and wisdom. As I said before, she was, unfortunately, a ditz.
With all her status and resources, she might have enjoyed a really wonderful life eventually, had she played her cards better.

Oh, well.
     


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 18, 2018, 10:14:56 pm
Diana wanted to remain an eternal ingenue and regrettably her lack of formal education is what resulted in her inability to learn and grow and mature. Her background as a teen bride was perfect and her lineage impeccable, but as life has shown, that means nothing after a decade of life in the wider world and a lack of education will trip a person up. I am dead certain that Diana would have been better off if she had just accepted that her ditzy days were at an end and if she had just chosen to start thinking before she acted and started thinking before she spoke out on anything.

As for anything to prove, you're right. She was working at a solid job as a teenager, she worked like crazy as a consort, and continued on when she was divorced. Thing is, that she should have proven her understanding of the pain of infidelity by not messing with men who were either married or already in relationships.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 18, 2018, 11:22:54 pm
Back then women of that set mostly went to finishing schools instead of University. The family that Diana and others married into were not exactly Einsteins.

Diana  was cut loose by the royals when her childbearing duties for the Prince were over (she was only 23). IMO anyway.

OTOH Alexandra a previous consort  was considered not that "brainy" but she did work hard, was a royal in her own right and her husband never dumped her for a mistress. She was allowed a large family and she was devoted to her children.



Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: YooperModerator on December 18, 2018, 11:25:35 pm
^Indeed

^^(Prefaced with this isn’t the PD thread either) but, Diana understood pain and was drawn to it.  Always was /would’ve been. Moth/flame.  She really couldn’t help herself.  She was, however, an anomaly the likes of which we will never see again.  She had everything except a willingness to play the marital game.  My .02 on PD.

We are still seeing the living results of the grenade Diana threw into that setup.  She is proof that modernizing didn’t work with this org. I’m not sure it ever will.  How much democratization will the BRF withstand before they are irrelevant?


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 19, 2018, 12:49:47 am
^ I think the discussion is still relevant to the thread title.

But to veer away from PD specifically, if you wish, I'd like to refer to Sandy's statement:

"The family that Diana and others married into were not exactly Einsteins."

See...this is what puzzles me. Why not marry Einsteins? They used to!

How did the more recent aristocracy (I guess 20th century?) allow themselves this level of genetic degeneration?  
As a monarchist, I am aware I may be asking this question of anti-monarchists (many posters here appear to be so, politically and philosophically speaking - unless they're here just for the gossip and personal dramas :bouncy:).
  
Thing is ...a lack of rigorous education, growth and self-improvement coupled with breeding with *fools* inevitably leads to the complete degeneration of your line.
This is how dynasties fall apart. This is how nature works - whether we like it or not.

They didn't know that? Or did they think their genetics would stay "special" forever, across endless generations, even though they long stopped doing anything of worth, rigor and virtue, unlike their ancestors?

Another poster - apologies for not remembering who said that - was commenting the other day on how royalty before the Hanovers were really invested in educating and improving themselves and putting it all to good use. You could hardly find stronger, smarter, wiser people in the realm than the royalty.
After all, this is what legends speak of kings.  

I understand their traditions and love of everything horses; but I am not sure they realized "brains" and sharp insight are 100 times more important in technologically advanced times than whatever one can do with a horse.
Yet they are still way more likely to marry jockeys (or equivalent) than an Einstein.  

Conservatism means using time-tested methods to prosper and adapt to new environmental realities - not merely maintaining some stupid, irrelevant habit/custom that hardly has any role anymore. Sure, you can do that too for quaint purposes, why not. But you also need to shape up in other ways and get in touch with reality.    

Some of the biggest lies of modernity were designed to cover up or distract from the fact that most traits are heritable.
This is the brutal reality of genetics which we are now bent on ignoring or denying, kicking and screaming. Because "equality".    

High IQ people usually breed high IQ people. The beautiful breed beautiful. The athletic breed athletic and the dolts breed dolts. And those with poor impulse control breed criminals.  Even a sense of morality / right-wrong has been found to have a genetic component.  There are exceptions, of course; but how is it NOT insane to focus on, and set up, a social system based on exceptions rather than the rule?

Due to their enormous status and wealth accrued over so many generations, these aristos could have easily attracted some of the best genetic stock into their ranks to breed with.
Out of billions in the 20th century, there are plenty of highly intelligent, highly educated, attractive people with strong character, a deep sense of morality and drive - the so-called "winner" stock. Although rare in the population, such specimens do exist and if anyone had access to them - it would be the aristos.  

Yet, in the 20th century they rapidly degenerated into a circle of vapid dolts due to lying about, indulging and faulty breeding.
When you look closer into what their life means today and who they really are, you read about the luxury, jet-setting and clubbing life; drinking, hunting, watching soaps, gossiping, and playing to the moronic democratic crowds with "charity shows" in the hope of being accepted and validated by the them - all because they are now culturally dominant.

This is the perfect depiction of decay.  

Fact is, with the post-War developments, they no longer had anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together (and their interest at heart) to advise them on alliances, marriages and breeding anymore.  Half a century later - they've become circus freaks that can't impose 1 oz of real respect.        

Personally, I believe monarchy / aristocracy is the best and most natural social organization system there is. But hierarchies must be natural, gradual and must reflect true substance - not degeneration perched on top of a huge pile of overgrown money.

There are still real kings among us.
Hopefully one day they will rise, restore a sane system of governance and start fresh dynasties, anew. Then keep up.  


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 19, 2018, 01:26:44 am
Thing is, that
Back then women of that set mostly went to finishing schools instead of University. The family that Diana and others married into were not exactly Einsteins.

I really think that there has to be some kind of setup where people who are not serious about getting a genuine education and genuine career can be sorted out and rejected from schooling. I am dead sure that there has to be some kind of way to determine who is and who is not serious about an education. Second, I believe that a lot of royals get derailed in uni mainly since they're around people who never truly accept them for themselves alone and it is easy to get isolated from the wider world that they truly belong in and understand. The smaller world of uni has a different effect and William would have been better off getting an education in the palaces and doing online courses to get the official credential. It's not like he needed to be in a classroom and it's not like he would have been missing out on much. Regrettably too many royals put themselves in situations where they are completely unable to handle those who do not back off or even know how to.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 19, 2018, 01:44:06 am
^ ^ There has never been a Golden Age of aristocratic and Royal rule. Yes, there have been some very able and wise noblemen and women and monarchs. They have always, however, been interspersed with the incompetent, the stupid and the mental and physically ill.

Emperors of Rome like Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Justin II, became bywords for madness and cruelty. Some mentally ill monarchs, just out of the top of my head---Charles VI of France, Henry VI of England, Juana the Mad of Castile, Eric XIV of Sweden, Maria I of Portugal, George III later in life, Christian VII of Denmark, and several members of the Wittelsbach dynasty in Germany such as King Otto of Bavaria. And in the Scottish aristocracy there have unfortunately been several cases of mental illness over the generations in the family of the Marquesses of Queensberry, in spite of aristocrat marriages with other 'great' Houses.

 And there are plenty more. The last Tsar of Russia, the product of a Princess of Denmark and a Tsar, with a long line of royal blood on both sides, was vacillating, weak and incompetent.

Most marriages in the nobility and royal families in former centuries were conducted specifically for dynastic reasons, to seal alliances between dynasties, not to guarantee 'superior genetic stock', even if the term had been understood then. And Kings did not hesitate to marry off 'well-educated' daughters, sons and siblings to the elderly, infirm, eccentric, cruel, and disabled, if it suited their purpose.

Sometimes, among the Ancient Egyptian Pharoahs for example and the Hapsburgs, inbreeding led to gross physical and mental disabilities. There are plenty of examples in centuries gone by of eccentricities and worse in aristocratic families, people who ran through fortunes, were cruel and unjust to their 'inferiors' and families, and were unintelligent, in spite of being the products of historically important forebears.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 19, 2018, 02:48:38 am
^ At that time, they didn't have the scientific information they have today.

All dynasties have a beginning - and the founders of dynasties were typically genetically endowed individuals.
Over time, some of their families obviously weakened, exactly because of what you're point to - forced alliances for expansion and influence, inbreeding, coddled, unchallenged, over-indulged family members, etc. 

Today - they should know better with the help of science.

They have done nothing to correct the mistakes that lead to their decline - of which breeding well is one of the most important, as confirmed by cutting-edge research in genetics. 

Society needs stable, natural hierarchies and competent, able and moral leaders at every level.
Society doesn't need fraudulent social and "professional" climbing, and self-serving lies to maximize image and social popularity.
This societal model we're currently "enjoying"  causes nothing but exhausting social unrest, poor quality of life for most people, lack of social trust and general existential misery.

Even the least "golden" of aristocratic times were more "golden", socially speaking, than the social chaos and collateral damage we deal with today.
By this, I am not arguing life was better/easier then. Physically, it certainly wasn't,  because people didn't have the technologies we have today.
But despite what most believe, technologies that led to physically easier life were not created courtesy of the egalitarian, social climbing / democratic system - but in spite of it. 



Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Rosella on December 19, 2018, 05:02:08 am
I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by 'technologies that led to physically easier lives were not created courtesy of the egalitarian, social climbing /democratic system.

The Agricultural revolution-- which allowed root crops to be grown in winter to feed cattle, pigs etc which had formerly to be slaughtered and therefore improved public health all over Europe and Britain--was in fact largely developed by farmers, who, as their wealth increased most certainly climbed into the property owning middle classes.

As far as the Industrial revolution was concerned this was largely fostered in Britain by engineers and entrepreneurs. As their wealth increased, mill owners and the like became solidly middle class. They to a large degree looked down on the louche ways of many of the aristocracy, but they certainly wanted 'democracy' for themselves. The First Rreform Act in the 1830s brought the right to have members of Parliament in new powerful industrial centres like Manchester and Liverpool which had formerly had no political representation at all.

And it was in fact MPs representing the middle classes which brought in further voting rights (democratisation) into British Parliament in the late 19th century. The rising middle classes also presided over huge growth in the British economy, which led to huge strides in public health, sanitation, education of the masses etc. And people also received higher wages than they ever had under an aristocratic system. This enabled them to feed and clothe their families properly.

 Other countries political systems developed differently. However, in Britain the power of the House of Lords was curbed in 1911. The decrease in aristocratic privilege didn't result in any diminishing intelligence or 'brain power' among Britain's scientists, industrialists or academics etc, which had many achievements to its name in the 20th century, an age which saw full franchise among the population.

IMO It's all very well to moan about the very real failing of the modern world. However, I believe that very very few of us (and most people are not aristocrats) would wish to return to a world of aristocratic elites, however wise some individuals were, in which the vast majority of human beings in the countries ruled by those elites, were born, lived and died in poverty and want.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 19, 2018, 05:27:45 am
I think the Arabs have it best; they know what they are, where they come from, and basically accept life and human nature for what it is. They just let people be people and there are harsh punishments in their culture, but that is life as well. There is no such thing as a consequence free life.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 19, 2018, 05:43:12 am
^ Indeed, all technological advances were done by farmers, and later entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists etc  - humans of substance and competence, not social climbers.
They were the true elites of their casts, not modern phonies with fake CV-s and "PR" experience!

People mistakenly believe that a naturally hierarchical system (caste-based) only recognizes and protects the Official/Titled Nobility. It doesn't.
It maintains honest hierarchies and encourages excellence within each social layer (middle classes, working classes, everyone) - exactly because it doesn't allow any sneaky good-for-nothing to jump through the system's hoops and fake their way up with a well-crafted (wink-wink) CV or "whale-saving" type of accomplishments.
Significant upper social mobility, from one layer/caste to another, is rare in such a system and only when truly deserved and needed. And this is a good thing, not a bad one!    
No social system ever perished because the MM-s of this world didn't have "equality of opportunity" to catapult into privileged positions via pure "magic".

It wasn't democracy, per se, as a political system, that led to increase in living standards for all. It was the work of a few intelligent, endowed and highly competent individuals. Once the living standards were up for all, the populace became free to throw democratic tantrums.
Everything else is social climbing.
 
"The decrease in aristocratic privilege didn't result in any diminishing intelligence or 'brain power' among Britain's scientists, industrialists or academics etc, which had many achievements to its name in the 20th century, an age which saw full franchise among the population."

It didn't - while the effects of the old natural social arrangements still lasted. Then dogmatic egalitarianism kicked in.  
The average IQ in the western world is now going down.  

I would go do the leg work to link to the empirical literature, but this too is getting off topic as this is not an academic/scientific forum.

It is Royal Gossip, per forum title. However, it is difficult to overlook that this gossip ties into macro- and micro- political realities kept in the shade by the democratic dogma and political orthodoxies of our time.
 
    

 


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 19, 2018, 06:18:02 am
I think a huge issue is that the mainstream middle class of our society think they have a right to tell everyone around them how to do things like run their lives, business, and how the country should be run. Kate managed to get that ring mainly since she was middle class and she and everyone around her thought that as a result of simply being middle class, that she had a right to move up in the world without first proving her worth to her nation and to William. A lot of middle class uni graduates think that a degree entitles them to move up to the executive suite of almost every company on the planet and deserve the man of their choice. Or the spouse of their choice. It was never expected that Kate would get a full time job/career and build her own prestige in her own right and prove her worth to her nation. Then once William got bored with her and dumped her, everyone acted like he had committed some kind of moral outrage or crime against society. Snobbery was the immediate weapon of choice and for some reason, everyone acted like William had let Kate (and his nation) down by breaking up with a middle class girl. As if she was entitled to a ring after getting a degree, sleeping with him and latching on at uni, and then hanging around waiting for his phone calls for when he wanted to go out getting drunk and partying/jet setting.

Given my negative experiences with the mainstream middle class, I truly believe that Kate's social background did not prepare her for the realities of life in the upper classes, which are not kind to women who begin on their back and knees in the bedroom. They are kind only to those who have proven themselves time and time over again and Kate has yet to prove herself. Throw in the slander she threw at them during her climb into Westminster and it is something that will never be forgiven. A huge reason a lot of 'lesser' level consorts flounder is because they do not understand that respect has to be earned and simply 'being' isn't enough. Good PR is not enough. She could have all the good PR in the world, but it will not mean that she will be able to force them to accept her as one of their own. Despite being a student at many of the same schools, same angling towards clubbing and superficial 'jobs,' the Midds are still outsiders no matter how many royal events they go to. It is telling that it took Kate eight years just to get that ring, plus all the petty humiliations, numerous breakups, and of course, William's continued reluctance during the engagement interview. He was not acting like he was a man besotted with his future wife to be.

This egalitarian approach and perspective is something that has done the most damage to a lot of lives. Kate is not the equal of William and she never will be. Second, the aristocracy is in fact never going to let her run over them and will never do more than give her the basic respect due her position. Kate was never trained to handle the power she now has and yes, she has done damage.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: sandy on December 19, 2018, 02:08:56 pm
^ I think the discussion is still relevant to the thread title.

But to veer away from PD specifically, if you wish, I'd like to refer to Sandy's statement:

"The family that Diana and others married into were not exactly Einsteins."

See...this is what puzzles me. Why not marry Einsteins? They used to!

How did the more recent aristocracy (I guess 20th century?) allow themselves this level of genetic degeneration?  
As a monarchist, I am aware I may be asking this question of anti-monarchists (many posters here appear to be so, politically and philosophically speaking - unless they're here just for the gossip and personal dramas :bouncy:).
  
Thing is ...a lack of rigorous education, growth and self-improvement coupled with breeding with *fools* inevitably leads to the complete degeneration of your line.
This is how dynasties fall apart. This is how nature works - whether we like it or not.

They didn't know that? Or did they think their genetics would stay "special" forever, across endless generations, even though they long stopped doing anything of worth, rigor and virtue, unlike their ancestors?

Another poster - apologies for not remembering who said that - was commenting the other day on how royalty before the Hanovers were really invested in educating and improving themselves and putting it all to good use. You could hardly find stronger, smarter, wiser people in the realm than the royalty.
After all, this is what legends speak of kings.  

I understand their traditions and love of everything horses; but I am not sure they realized "brains" and sharp insight are 100 times more important in technologically advanced times than whatever one can do with a horse.
Yet they are still way more likely to marry jockeys (or equivalent) than an Einstein.  

Conservatism means using time-tested methods to prosper and adapt to new environmental realities - not merely maintaining some stupid, irrelevant habit/custom that hardly has any role anymore. Sure, you can do that too for quaint purposes, why not. But you also need to shape up in other ways and get in touch with reality.    

Some of the biggest lies of modernity were designed to cover up or distract from the fact that most traits are heritable.
This is the brutal reality of genetics which we are now bent on ignoring or denying, kicking and screaming. Because "equality".    

High IQ people usually breed high IQ people. The beautiful breed beautiful. The athletic breed athletic and the dolts breed dolts. And those with poor impulse control breed criminals.  Even a sense of morality / right-wrong has been found to have a genetic component.  There are exceptions, of course; but how is it NOT insane to focus on, and set up, a social system based on exceptions rather than the rule?

Due to their enormous status and wealth accrued over so many generations, these aristos could have easily attracted some of the best genetic stock into their ranks to breed with.
Out of billions in the 20th century, there are plenty of highly intelligent, highly educated, attractive people with strong character, a deep sense of morality and drive - the so-called "winner" stock. Although rare in the population, such specimens do exist and if anyone had access to them - it would be the aristos.  

Yet, in the 20th century they rapidly degenerated into a circle of vapid dolts due to lying about, indulging and faulty breeding.
When you look closer into what their life means today and who they really are, you read about the luxury, jet-setting and clubbing life; drinking, hunting, watching soaps, gossiping, and playing to the moronic democratic crowds with "charity shows" in the hope of being accepted and validated by the them - all because they are now culturally dominant.

This is the perfect depiction of decay.  

Fact is, with the post-War developments, they no longer had anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together (and their interest at heart) to advise them on alliances, marriages and breeding anymore.  Half a century later - they've become circus freaks that can't impose 1 oz of real respect.        

Personally, I believe monarchy / aristocracy is the best and most natural social organization system there is. But hierarchies must be natural, gradual and must reflect true substance - not degeneration perched on top of a huge pile of overgrown money.

There are still real kings among us.
Hopefully one day they will rise, restore a sane system of governance and start fresh dynasties, anew. Then keep up.  

Yes, they used to be smarter maybe not Einsteins. The best tutors were brought into Tudor courts for instance and even royal daughters got instructed and learned. Elizabeth II compared to Elizabeth I learned relatively little.


Title: Re: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?
Post by: misanthrocrat on December 19, 2018, 03:49:49 pm
^ Thats too bad.