Royal Gossip
April 22, 2019, 05:46:22 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: Modernizing the monarchy?  (Read 1583 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LadySnowWhite
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2018, 08:24:40 am »

^^^  That's why I said "If the British monarchy MUST exist and be paid for by the subjects"   goodluck
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15369



« Reply #21 on: August 16, 2018, 12:08:04 pm »

You're all right, of course, to me.  There's nothing "modern" about not working for a living, let alone for such a ridiculously wealthy and powerful bunch.  It's laughable if it wasn't so absurd.
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10107


« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2018, 05:39:06 pm »

It sure is not modern in the true sense of the word.  Came across this in an Oz news site.   An old custody thing that apparently is still going.

Even the most knowledgeable fan might not be aware of this, but according to royal historians, Prince William and Kate Middleton don’t have legal custody of their own children.

That, in fact, belongs to the children’s 92-year-old great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II.

“The sovereign has legal custody of the minor grandchildren,” royal expert Marlene Koenig told news.com.au.

“This goes back to King George I [who ruled in the early 1700s], and the law’s never been changed. He did it because he had a very poor relationship with his son, the future King George II, so they had this law passed that meant the King was the guardian of his grandchildren.”

The law is more than 300 years old and was passed by a majority of 10 out of 12 judges in 1717, who decided the monarch’s “right of supervision extended to his grandchildren and this right of right belongs to His Majesty, King of the Realm, even during their father’s lifetime”.


https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/bizarre-reason-why-meghan-and-harry-wont-have-custody-of-their-children/news-story/5070826afa1e1869db31304d4674bd3b
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2018, 10:59:15 pm »

The main problem is that royal life is looked at as a lifestyle, not a WAY of life; there is a huge difference and it is rather frustrating that it's viewed that one can only be royal if one is rich. William's main problem and upbringing is largely due to the fact that he doens't view anyone as good enough unless they prove they aren't users by paying his way through life like with trips and freebie. William was not raised to think of himself as distinct and separate and was not raised to view himself as having a HUGE destiny. He and Harry never should have been raised as suburban gentry and should NEVER have been allowed to get off track in terms of shirking duties and ceremonial responsibilities.

Other European princes are the same; royals in those countries think that they're entitled to palaces and jet set vacations outside their own country. They go to fashion shows, do the bare minimum in the area of education, and want to marry women who bring nothing to their countries.
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.
HRHOlya
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5041



« Reply #24 on: August 22, 2018, 12:25:50 am »

^ Omg perfectly put, they all look to avoid "gold diggers" whilst gold-digging themselves.

Nice to see you back posting!
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2018, 01:32:53 am »

Thanks, I love this forum.

As for modernizing the monarchy, no royal has any business deciding anything mainly since they don't know their front or their back and don't even TRY to follow good advice. If anyone should be in charge, it should be a committee assigned by the government that responds to votes that are made on various subjects by the public. None of the royals are going to willingly streamline and it's not like the royals want to give any of it up. Christ, these royals have gotten it all wrong.

I do think that past constrictions are good (if they want to play outside, play in the royal parks and not in public parks) and I do believe that the royals need to step outside the mainstream and stop worrying about what some columnist thinks of them. I'm fed up with the fairytale BS and I am FED UP with how the courtiers and aristos are always the bad ones, while the *fool* cinderellas are in fact portrayed as saints.

Each Crown Princess of Europe has seriously bad stuff in their background and we don't know the full stories of their histories. As it is there's too much bad stuff known and there is in fact a lot the public does not know that is as it is, bad news. The European princes are hiding stuff from their own people and I am certain that it's bad. If I were a prince, I would be thinking like a politician, courting and marrying someone with a clean past and solid background.

It wasn't the fact that Charles and Diana had blue-blood that made it a mess, but it was in fact a relentlessly meddling mistress that wouldn't let go.
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.
windsor2
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12334


Harryite #21


« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2018, 04:13:58 am »

Hi KF  Hi  nice to see you back. Excellent post.
Now the royals just blame everyone but themselves for the mess they’ve made. Charles blamed the queen for being absent in his childhood and then forcing him to marry Diana, Wills and Harry blame the press that they blamed for killing their mum for them not having a decent girlfriend or choosing a wife that can deal with the press attention. It’s mad because the problem has always been them. They seemed to only enjoy women that don’t need to be respected or corted; fun time women with no self respect and won’t expect them to better themselves because they’re only interested in what these prince’s can give them. That’s why wills and Charles ended up with their spouses. Harry always came off differently. Maybe because of his outgoing nature and how he comes off during interviews, especially during the IG when they were held in the States. He came across that he’s responsible and caring and respected his role as a prince with allegiance to the queen. Then Meghan happened and that image’s gone right out the door with this fiasco. Although thing’s haven’t added up since day one of her being linked to Harry and everything since then, where does the royal family go from here? They’re in the gutter with this tacky reality show situation with the Markle’s. For some reason, Wills and Waity have skirted their patronage’s and Waity’s all but disappeared from public life leaving Meghan basically in the spotlight as the face of the monarchy. Madness and oddly disturbing.
The American tv special about the royal family can’t be one of sick sweet glossing over facts because the people see through that kind of pr and lies. The special should be hard hitting with how the royals can cope and thrive in the post-Brexit, social media world and not blaming the press and how horrible the public scrutiny is like past documentaries have done. 
Logged

Keep Calm and Carry On
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2018, 02:51:04 pm »

 flower Back to you!

Thing is, that I'm fed up with how royal men think that having mothers who work is such a misery; working parents is nothing new and I am fed up with how their parents were supposedly bad parents because their parents have to earn that luxury lifestyle. It's not possible for royals to be like a stay at home mother and even when Queens lived in palaces and weren't allowed to travel, royal children still had nannies and were sent to estates in different areas of the country. I'm fed up with being expected to sympathize with how their parents didn't coddle them 24/7 and I am fed up with how royals REFUSE to listen to the people who slave away trying to keep them on a track they should be capable of being on already as adults.

As for Harry, I wasn't sure he was as nice as he came across. He struck me as playing a role and as for his playful nature, it's easy when he doesn't' have to work or struggle to live in a decent place. He's had it very easy and I am certain that he didn't think that he would have to make any kind of effort to find someone nice, that someone nice would just be randomly shipped in and presented and then the woman in question would be burdened choosing whether or not to marry him if he proposed. Harry and William and royals in general seem to REFUSE to take control of any aspect of their lives, burdening everyone around them to parent them. I do not believe that it's the royal life itself, but the fact is that lately born royals are so determinedly childlike and refuse to take responsibility for anything.
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.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11181


« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2018, 05:28:40 pm »

The royals try to play normal when it suits them but it fails badly. Like Kate is praised by "spending time with her children" even with the longer than usual maternity leaves. She has nannies but work is anathema even for a few hours a week. She also can watch tennis and go out and have fun and leave the children. Kate is also implying that "bad mothers" leave the children to work. And Will cooperates with this skewed image. Parents can be great and work at the same time. I agree with you about royal men and attitude toward working mothers KF.

Supposedly the Queen was so happy that she got those years of being "normal" being a "navy wife" in Malta. But it was not normal because she left the children with her parents. SO it was no "ideal" family scenario.

And the royals who are not "allowed" to do royal work do not have serious jobs and can travel around the world and maybe put in an appearance at the office from time to time.

The younger ones appear to be more like "dabblers" than serious workers for the Firm.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2018, 08:03:45 pm »

You know, royal men shouldn't get mixed up with normal men and women; Kate isn't someone who comes from a posh background and how she puts on airs frustrates me to no end. She has no business being this neglectful of her kids since she doesn't come from money or background. I dislike how much of a snowflake these dolts become the minute they get the ring and how much money they start blowing. Letizia, acting childlike all the time and unwilling to behave normally despite her background; Kate putting on virginal airs during the engagement; MM wearing a simple virginal gown at her wedding and then Meg acting all demure and innocent.

These commoners are as old fashioned as they can get the minute they come back from the honeymoon.

I wish that princes would marry someone with at least a tidy background, not someone who has things in their life that need to be covered up and kept secret. It's not impossible for princes to find these women and it's not impossible for modern women to not make a mess of their lives. Princes have got to stop feeling sorry for themselves and I am fed up with how they whine about the constrictions of their position. These days, there are no constrictions.

Their only irritant is the press, but even the press back off and basically have no interest in being half as bad as they were with Diana (who admittedly called up the press) and I am sure that if they just stayed on the estates of their palaces they wouldn't have to deal with as much.

As for charity, it's now known to be just PR, not a sincere interest (or even ability given their piss poor educations) and I am certain that at this point, no one actually takes much of it seriously. AIDS isn't a genuine stigma anymore and mental illness has been getting treated for a long time. Half the planet's adolescents are on some kind of medication and thing is, that I am certain that mental illness would be more acceptable if not for the idiocy of how people approach it.

All in all, royals do nothing, bring nothing, and are nothing. Ferrying them around the world on a huge budget has thankfully passed and I'm glad that people are at long last tired of how these royals keep getting the entire world, giving the world the middle finger, then demanding more out of burdened taxpayers. I saw right through Harry, but I admit I was fooled by William's act. As for Kate, she's got gall since she was a mistress for pity's sake, not a girlfriend who quickly became a wife.
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.
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2018, 07:34:03 pm »

She's modernized the monarchy right into Kardashia land. Way to go Queenie.

More  thumbsup
Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2018, 07:56:26 pm »

The main problem is that royal life is looked at as a lifestyle, not a WAY of life; there is a huge difference and it is rather frustrating that it's viewed that one can only be royal if one is rich. 

The above is a massive insight.

Most people today have no clue what an aristocratic system stands for. Neither do the modern royals, apparently.
They think about it strictly in individualistic terms. Who gets to live fancy and with unquestioned status. 

Aristocracy and aristocratic behavior, ironically, used to be a way of life for ALL in society.
It was a matter of principle, character and a dignified way of going through life, which everyone was encouraged to adopt - each in their natural social stratum.

Now it's confused with being Rich, Shiny and Adulated.
No different from being a celebrity or Turned-rich-via-Whatever-Means.

This is not Modernization of Monarchy. It is its Lowerization, so it will fit in with our corrupt times and survive as Reality Show, if anything.
This is the only function it can still have under modern societal arrangements.   
 
   
Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4622


« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2018, 08:36:09 pm »

^ The middle classes in Britain in the 19th and early 20th centuries didn't look upon aristocratic society in the way you speak of at all. There were too many examples in the so-called upper classes at that time, (cases of which appeared in newspapers) of aristocrats abusing their positions, being unfaithful to their spouses, running through vast fortunes etc. As Lloyd George said, before the First World War pointing to many aristocratic families 'They labour not nor do they spin', in referring to laziness, frivolity, louceness, devoting themselves to useless past times, etc. The French aristocracy in the 18th century were hardly moral patterns of behaviour either. Neither were many examples among the Habsburg Dukes.
Logged
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2018, 04:48:27 am »

^ Sure, because many degenerated and failed to live up to their position. It's called entropy. All empires, lineages etc. eventually collapse. Everything in nature tends towards chaos.
 
However, the ideal-type aristocratic model is assumed to be a model of excellence and virtue to be held up for all society.
It is not a model of self-indulgence, vapidity and decay.  Just because SOME members of the aristocracy abused the system and turned out decadent losers on its back doesn't make the Aristocratic system a bad model, in and of itself. 
Historically, the public has always been more likely to focus on decadent aristocratic cases than on the virtuous, exemplary ones. Because well...the public instinctively and subconsciously resents those whom a simple accident of birth places in such position of height and privilege. At a certain level, that's normal and expected.   
Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
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!