XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
Whether it was for good or bad, noble or selfish, I do think David abdicating did pave for modern royals to choose whether or not to pass the legacy onto their children. Witness Princess Anne. Witness Princesses Caroline and Stephanie. Not to mention marrying a commoner (William certainly wasn't the first, even if the media completely glossed over it). Not to mention marrying a divorcee (I'm sure Charles is secretly grateful to his late great-Uncle for paving the way). Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable for royalty to do any of those things, but now it's commonplace (or at least not that scandalous).
Much as I love royalty, I do think it is an outmoded idea that has served its purpose. Which is why I can't feel angry at David for abdicating. The world had changed from his parent's day, his grandparent's day: royalty don't rule but rather serve as figureheads.
I do take issue with David being a playboy, for devoting his whole life to aesthetism. However, I don't think it was fair for him (or any royal) to have to "serve" just because they were born into the position.
I completely agree. David standing up to the institution and choosing his own way did force some changes to occur in England and in the institution of the BRF, despite the fact that they tried to maintain the status quo for awhile. Just 2 decades after Wallis and David, Princess Mary was faced with the same situation.
Another thing the David situation proves is just because someone is born into a family as the oldest, doesn't mean they should be running a country...or reigning a country as is the case in England.