Royal Gossip
May 23, 2019, 02:56:49 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Democratization of Blue-Blood Marriages - Why THOSE types of commoners?  (Read 1132 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #40 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 easter-bunny).
  
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.  
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 12:54:27 am by misanthrocrat » Logged

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

Posts: 38567



WWW
« Reply #41 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.
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.
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4728


« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 01:51:01 am by Rosella » Logged
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #43 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. 

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: 4728


« Reply #44 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.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38567



WWW
« Reply #45 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.
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 #46 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.
 
    

 
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 05:45:59 am by misanthrocrat » Logged

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

Posts: 38567



WWW
« Reply #47 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.
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: 11346


« Reply #48 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 easter-bunny).
  
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.
Logged
misanthrocrat
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 396



« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2018, 03:49:49 pm »

^ Thats too bad.
Logged

“To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even nobler and much less trouble.”
― Mark Twain
Pages: 1 2 [3]   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!