Royal Gossip
March 26, 2019, 11:12:00 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Are You Disillusioned With Royal Families?  (Read 7840 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« on: June 02, 2012, 02:55:07 am »

Are you disillusioned of your royal fandom? Are you coming to the conclusion that the institutions you admired are nothing but a tacky charade?
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15296



« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2012, 03:37:15 am »

In some way's ...
But then again I never was a really rabid fan to begin with, (there's a good reason I tend to go off topic so much: I honestly care more for the community of ppl in here then some of the royal's discussed in here BFF2 )
I always was more interested in the historic background of these family's and the thing's, good and bad, they accomplished over the centuries
I said it ones before I'm a lover of pretty things like jewels, art, palaces and the royal's seem to have a lot of the best of those things.
their personal lives are not that fascinating to me (I don't care if harry has a gal or not nor do i really care about kate's latest shopping trip)

And the ppl I'm following (brf) aren't connected to me or my country really so it's easier to get some mental distance between it.
I'm not paying for the fool's ya know (I go my own fool's to pay for and they are not as flashy or embarrassing really tehe)
I'm just wondering what will happen to this mess in 2 to 5 years from now.
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2012, 05:49:02 am »

UP until the engagement I admit to being admiring of the BRF and Charles and HM and Philip and even Camilla, yet go figure, when I see how they let Kate and the Midds walk all over them, it's been an unpleasant slap in the face.

Looking at all the Crown princesses with this new perspective, admittedly I am disgusted with them too. Looking at it all, I am aware now of hte niggling doubts in my head flew around and things I wasn't prepared to see. Almost all of them are common and have no respect for their country.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2012, 06:56:02 am »

William marrying such a lazy, immature, spoilt woman has certainly caused me to question my commitment to the constitutional monarchy for Australia. If Australia were not so governed, then perhaps I couldn't give a toss.

But then, it's hard to answer a hypothetical question. That stated, royalty doesn't bother me to such extent that if Waity were not going to be my future Queen, I would be so concerned to think about it carefully.

I am different to many on this board though. I've never really followed royalty historically, in detail, or considered myself a "fan". So I can understand those of you for whom from the time of this betrothal, disillusionment has set in. Which is not to say mine hasn't, but it's more to do with the political/consitutional aspect of it, rather than as an interested observer.

akasha's stance is different altogether: she's interested in the history, but not the personalities themselves as much. There's a distance there.

In some aspects, that is similar to my own position, except there is a formal, vested interest. Whilst the British monarch is our Head of State, I'm not coming from a "fan" point of view either.

But, yes, overall, for whatever reason, I'm disillusioned in my own way.
Logged
buflesse
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3612



« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2012, 08:32:53 pm »

Since the arrival of WK I've been questioning my support for the monarchy. The Queen is a wonderful, dedicated person and I think she deserves credit for its popularity. Once she's gone, what will it be? I think my main issue with the monarchy as it is is that we are supposed to be deferential and subservient to someone regardless of whether they deserve our respect. William and Kate haven't got my respect, and what they've shown is that the monarchy is quickly becoming just another part of celebrity culture, at a hefty cost to the taxpayer.
Logged
Nighthawk
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2012, 03:49:47 am »

I've been thinking they need to get rid of 98 percent of all Royal Famlies not like they really do anything other than sponge of the Country they're living in.  Don't need to be a Royal to go around doing Charity work  sigh
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2012, 04:08:55 am »

I have to say, when you comprehend that taxpayers are going to be paying for these people for the rest of their lives and you see their taste for lavish designers and jewels and couture, you realize how long it is going to be since after all, they will get the best medical care, they will be around for one or two generations and you realize how much it adds up. With Presidents, we protect them long after (and get the best care) mainly because they are literally RUNNING the country.

Since two-thirds of the royals are hardly even able to get good degrees and training, bluntly put, they are rightly not running the country in any capacity and since there are times when they shirk engagements, frankly they do not deserve lifelong protection and funding. Mette-Marit didn't even finish her degree in London and didn't have (to my knowledge) a good reputation and even a marriage for her kid's sake. Just think, the politicians that are so disdained, have wives with MUCH better reputations.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Magnolia
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3929


« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2012, 03:57:15 am »

If you look at old videos of the RF from the 50's 60's 70's there was a mystery there and they were a symbol of respect.Then I *despise* to say this since Diana married in at first it was good then you could see the press like slowly creeping in and the RF just started to look so common and then the huge scandals RF myth was gone.Now who do you have a Climberton who's in love with herself and a Wimpo and Charles is next to be King but anything,anything can happen that can change that, look who's next goodness...
Logged


THIS IS YOU:NET- FXCKER A PERSON WHO SPENDS DAYS ON THE INTERNET AT A TIME USUALLY LATE AT NIGHT OR VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING HE OR SHE IS A RECLUSE AND A NET-FXCKER! THIS IS YOU:NET-JUNKIES TEND TO NOT HAVE LIVES ALTHOUGH ON RARE OCCASIONS ONE OF THEM UNWITTINGLY DOWNLOADS IT FROM THE INTERNET
buflesse
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3612



« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2012, 01:54:58 am »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/08/queens-jubilee-celebration-pure-fantasy

Interesting article on the Jubilee and the BRF in general. Especially poignant comments about Kate and Charles:

"The vision of the Duchess of Cambridge practising wifely submission during her engagement interview while speaking in a fake posh voice haunts me; on subsequent engagements she spoke only of William, and then it's off to another £3,000-a-night suite in paradise with a £10,000 dress hanging off her shrinking frame. Of Kate's, or rather Queen Catherine's, future miseries, we can only guess: if you live by the mob, you will die by it. Prince Charles, with his 11 private secretaries and his fetish for interfering in government, is called Sir by everyone, except the Queen, whom he calls Mummy, in a parody of Little Britain dysfunction. We were all in on the joke at the concert; it got the biggest laugh of the night. Mummy? Really?"
Logged
Nighthawk
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2012, 03:29:28 am »

ouch!!!!  the guardian wasn't holding any punches back thanks for the read beflesse  thankyou flower  Guardian usually don't hold back when they see the royals doing things wrong which is good on them  thumbsup
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2012, 02:37:14 pm »

I've been thinking they need to get rid of 98 percent of all Royal Famlies not like they really do anything other than sponge of the Country they're living in.  Don't need to be a Royal to go around doing Charity work  sigh

I totally agree, but for us it is a stable system of Gvt. And so the quandary ...  sigh
Logged
anobserver
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 319


« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2012, 01:52:42 am »

As an American, I have never really understood the governmental role of HM in the Commonwealth. I"ll have to Wiki/Google that tonight.

As for am I disillusioned with royal families? In a word, no.

I am disillusioned with modernity, I think. When I reflect back on all the advantages the royals have at their fingertips, and think that they really only utilize the best of the best health care (aided, in the case of the Windsors, no doubt by genetics) it makes me sick. In the 'good old days' (and I mean, way, way back: think Henry VIII) the royals were among the best educated, most well read and most intelligent (by virtue of education) of the world. Now, they just waffle about, picking causes to champion for PR's sake, without ever actually applying themselves to anything.

Perhaps it's because I myself place such a high value on education (whether formal or informal) that I absolutely cannot respect any of them one bit. They provide a fun diversion when I don't want to read the American tabs in between whatever else I'm doing, but I have never, ever respected the lot of them.

HM I can understand: she was born, came of age, and began her reign in a very different time. Her children, all of them, and their children to boot, are pretty pathetic in my book.

If we could wake up in a world where none of them had been 'born royal' and yet retained their CVs 'as-is' they'd be in the unemployment lines without a doubt.
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2012, 09:40:51 am »

In essence, the British monarch is our Head of State. That means that HM must pass all our laws in order for them to be enacted law: "royal assent". The powers are wide and broad, but in reality, her function is fulfilled by an Australian citizen, the Governor-General. Currently, Quentin Bryce, as the first woman to hold this role. The GG is the Queen's representative in Oz.

These days, the Queen would never interfere with Australian politics or our power to govern our country as we see fit. She knows that if ever that would occur, we would become a republic as soon as possible.

Here is a link which summarises in brief the Royal Assent process:

http://www.opc.gov.au/faq/

Here is a link to the GG's website, which explains the legalities of her role:

http://www.gg.gov.au/content.php/category/id/1/title/role



Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2012, 09:54:21 am »

Timed out ...

We also have state governors.

All our judges swear allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors according to law. So, our relationship with the British monarchy is extremely formal and ceremonial, to this day.

Apparently, William covets the role of the Commonwealth of Australia Governor-General. In theory, there is nothing to prevent it. But, in reality, it won't be accepted by the Australian people. That is because of the perception that it would compromise our independence; it is too jarring. The embedded ideology is that the GG role will always be held by an Australian citizen.





Logged
anobserver
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 319


« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2012, 01:26:53 pm »

Thanks for the links, June!  thankyou

Very interesting read, and I think I understand a bit better.

Given the scope of work for the GG I would be shocked if William would actually want (or would receive) that role. It seems to involve a fair bit of work and understanding of the law, so I could understand the outrage if someone like PW were to get it.
Logged
June
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3700


« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2012, 01:49:05 pm »

You're most welcome, anobserver.  hug

I don't claim to be a Constitutional law expert, but I know the basics.

And you're right, the GG role is technically complex and not for an intellectual lightweight. William lacks the formal education to take on such a role. Maybe, in time, he could be tutored, but it just won't happen.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2012, 07:35:21 pm »

Quote
they really only utilize the best of the best health care (aided, in the case of the Windsors, no doubt by genetics) it makes me sick. In the 'good old days' (and I mean, way, way back: think Henry VIII) the royals were among the best educated, most well read and most intelligent (by virtue of education) of the world. Now, they just waffle about, picking causes to champion for PR's sake, without ever actually applying themselves to anything.

I have to agree with you; the thing is, that in Tudor times, by age twelve all the Tudor children were multi-lingual and extremely talented in music. They have no reason not to ahve occupied the same pursuits at an early age and there is no reason that they should not be multi-lingual as well. Archduke Otto Von Hapsburg knew all the languages of the UN assembly and that is the perfect example of a royal with a classical liberal education, not this stupid hippie curriculum that doesn't teach anything useful.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
buflesse
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3612



« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2012, 12:10:00 am »

Kate and William had all aspects of a proper classical education at their top public schools, they just chose not to take any of it in.
Logged
anobserver
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 319


« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2012, 12:25:28 am »

Kate's not a royal, though. Apart from William, I found this lovely tidbit on Wikipedia:

Quote
Upon his return to Britain, Edward matriculated at Jesus College, Cambridge, to read history. His admission to Cambridge caused some controversy at the time, as his A-level grades were far below the standard normally required, "straight As", for entry to the university.[6] Edward graduated in 1986 with lower second class honours,[7] and, as is customary at Cambridge, proceeded Master of Arts (Cantab) in 1991, making Edward the fourth of only five members of the Royal Family in history to have obtained a university degree.

So he was admitted despite having terribly low grades and there are only five members of the Royal Family in history who obtained university degrees. I just think it's absurd that these people are meant to be respected (and curtseyed/bowed to) by people who have accomplished more in life without having had all the advantages they do.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38508



WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2012, 06:45:47 am »

Kate and William had all aspects of a proper classical education at their top public schools, they just chose not to take any of it in.

Really?

In the past a liberal education meant several languages, skilled writing, being well read, and knowing how to play various instruments. This sort of education was given to people who were in fact studying for a position in office (when they weren't studying diplomacy) and did it to prove that they were cultured and civilized people. I can only see that William apparently didn't want ot learn anything useful while Kate decided to play at being a aristo and decided to treat her studies as a joke.

Now, as for the rest, Mette-Marit didn't bother finishing the degree program her husband's family paid for while the ohter women like Mary (still not fluent in the language that she married into) are simply living leisurely lives while not really cultivating themselves in any positive way. When Otto Von Habsburg died, he was the last of royals who were actually EDUCATED in the way that the word is supposed to mean.

Quote
I just think it's absurd that these people are meant to be respected (and curtseyed/bowed to) by people who have accomplished more in life without having had all the advantages they do.

I have to agree; at some point, with the women who are called "Crown Princess" it's really an insult. No one should have ot curtsy to Mette-Marit in deference. No one should show deference to CP Mary and no one should show deference to Kate or William. It's absurd, but disgusting.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!