The Value Of Monarchy

[Count langley]

As an American I can only assume; however, the Monarch of a nation is a symbol of national unity, much like our Flag. It is, indeed, the continuity of generations past and hope for the future.

In a republic, particularly in my country, we don't know who will live in the White House next year, whereas a royal family one watches them grow and live there lives on the public stage.

In most countries, royalty is more symbolic than powerful; however, one should appreciate the pride this symbolism embodies.

 

[Jacknch]

Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?

Yes, the concept of royalty is relevant these days as are many other long-standing institutions such as education, the armed forces, the American Presidency etc. I think people need to look at the wider picture and realise that just because we are in the 21st century, things do not need to be modernised or changed simply because of current trends. In 300 years time, people would look back at history and think such things as "so for hundreds of years there were monarchies and then suddenly they were thought of as being irrelevant because it was fashionable/the trend to do so". So what I'm trying to say is why should the concept of royalty be any less relevant today than say 1909 or 1809 or 1709 etc?

 

[Bones]

I think monarchy is or should be even more relavent today than ever. As Europe becomes more multi-cultural royal families are living links with the ancestral history of the native people and their culture. The US has other abstracts to unite, and the US is a much younger country than most in Europe (though oddly a much older government than most) so it cannot really compare. In many countries that even abolished their monarchies the former royal family remains very to moderately relavent from what I have seen.

Did anyone see that HBO special on John Adams? I loved the part where he met with King George III and as he was leaving King George said something like, "I pray the United States will not suffer unduly for want of a monarchy". lol loved that

 

[wedmonds]

Chapter and verse, please. I'd like to look this up for myself. Scripture also says to "Honor the king"...this was at a time when the king was Caesar.

I was reading the bible and something stood out to me. It stated in Exodus 20:5 that God said, "Thou shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I am a jealous God, who will not tolerate your affection for idols!"

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

 

[Osipi]

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

That is a pretty strong opinion and I do respect it. I am in the States where we just have wealthy elected politicians which I'm sure some think are pure evil too. With having a constitutional monarchy, I believe the UK and the Commonwealth nations is holding onto something very precious... a continuous preservation of centuries of history and traditions. It fascinates me. There are many many people born into wealthy families or those that have made their own fortunes that are not in any way associated with the aristocracy. Being an aristocrat does not necessarily mean wealth, privilege and power. I don't believe that HM married the DoE for his money as I don't think there was much.

 

[Madame Royale]

I was reading the bible and something stood out to me. It stated in Exodus 20:5 that God said, "Thou shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I am a jealous God, who will not tolerate your affection for idols!"

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

Gone are the days where royals controlled all the wealth and privilege, as you say. They generally exist only by the good graces of parliament and as such, the people.

Yes the aristocracy consists of many landowners and businessmen who have through enterprise and tourism, sustained or acquired their fortune, but so what? With the title comes an obligation to preserve their history and the history of their family. Those that bear a title often do so for it was inherited.

What you seem not to have mentioned is that bowing and curtsying is no longer expected. It is a discretionary act.

As for worship...

What about the sign of a cross, be it around ones neck or placed on an alter? It is a distinctive idol that people touch, neal before and kiss with a worshiping reverence because it's believed to be a holy image; yet it was man who made it so. It is an idol which technically depicts what was a man made murdering instrument which became, by way of human fascination and in many ways, superstition, an idolised effigy.

An individual’s relationship with their faith should be private and reliant upon nothing that is humanly fashioned.

I realise you were replying to a previous post, but your post seemed to me to be about preaching a biblical pretext more than anything, which needless to say, has little to do with the Queen of Australia, her Governors' General and her residences.

 

[Mermaid1962]

There's a difference between respecting the office that a person holds and worshipping another human being. Why would St. Paul say that Christians should "honour the king" if that were not so? There was no contradiction in Paul's doctrine in honouring a human ruler while also declaring that Jesus is Lord.

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

 

[Osipi]

An individual’s relationship with their faith should be private and reliant upon nothing that is humanly fashioned.

Very well stated Madame Royale and one reason why I believe that these forums frown on religious debates unless pertaining to British history such as the Reformation and such.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was reading the bible and something stood out to me. It stated in Exodus 20:5 that God said, "Thou shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I am a jealous God, who will not tolerate your affection for idols!"

To me I think that having affections for a monarchy (a symbol of the state) is worshiping a IDOL. And bowing to any man or woman that walks this earth is a sin as well. The only person that should be addressed your majesty and bowed to is God or Jesus of Nazareth. NO OTHERS.

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

Inherited wealth isn't 'pure evil'.

People like Hitler and Stalin were 'pure evil' but monarchs such as the Queen and the system she heads certainly isn't.

As an Australian I regard myself as living in one of the most democratic countries in the world where every person has the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to be heard by the people in government etc. The Queen doesn't impact on those rights at all, except to protect them.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't hate royals personally. I just hate what the represent. Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

The only wealth they control is what they have earnt in there own right.
They are hardly undemocratic, just because they were chosen by someone to be in the royal family they should not be descriminated against.
If you think the BRF is pure evil, I wonder what you think of Joseph Stalin.

 

[David V]

Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

You know, the ironic fact is that the very countries where this system actually exists or existed until recently are not even monarchies at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Clinkerbuilt]

Hi All,

Well, this is my first post, here, so apologies in advance for the wordy intro.

I want to first state that I am ecstatic at finding this forum, and only wish I'd had a chance to post sooner. second, although I was born and raised in the US, I am solidly Monarchist, politically. I say this because, as an amateur historian, I note first that Monarchy is distinguished more by its abscence than its presence, and second that, to paraphrase something I read so long ago I don't remember the reference, ultimate power may flow from the People, but the People are too easily swayed by silver-tongued scam artists who tell them what they want to hear, to the detriment of themselves, their neighbors and the Nation as a whole.

In the current system, Monarchy is functionally irrelevent, but only beacuse of two primary factors, one feeding the other: first, the concept of Monarchy has been demonized in the last two-hundred years, beginning with George III with what became the US, and followed by Louis XVI -- after the guillotine, it was only a matter of time.

The problem for Monarchy as a system is that the social contract has never been well laid out -- essentially, Monarchy started out as a military dictatorship with pomp and ceremony. When that was removed, nothing was written - by Monarch or Commoner - to replace it: it was winner take all, and if a Monarchy remained, it was either eliminated entirely, or relegated to strictly ceremonial duties.

As to Monarchy being the "root of all evil", I'm sorry but that's just silly - never forget that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all elected to their poisitons by their respective "popular" systems of government.

Most people want monarchy - badly. People want someone to look up to. Partly, this is the "Parent Effect", but also partly "Star Power" -- and if they don't have a monarchy built into their government system, they will try to create one: you need look no further than Barack Obama in 2008-2009, Nursultan Nazarbayev, current President of Kazakhstan from 1991, or Chairman Mao, himself, who can be viewed as the first of a new Imperial Dynasty in China.

In order for Monarchy in particular, and aristocracy/nobility in general, to become viable as anything other than fodder for scandal rags, a new social contract for the modern day has to be created and adhered to. Please allow me to try and rough this out:

* The Monarch and the Nobility must stand as living examples and symbols of the Nation, and act accordingly.

* While both Monarch and nobility (male AND female) must retain some real military function, it needs to ultimately be focused at the higher levels of command; however,

* The Monarch and nobility must also have solid groundings in economics, agriculture, general science, management, industry and environmental management, because

* The aristocratic structure needs to function as a sort of "backup central nervous system" to the civilian bureaucracy, ready and able to step in to take charge of and deal emergencies as they happen...witness the current BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: after 50+ days, there is no real leadership or direction, and the hesitant local steps are being hampered by bureaucratic nattering about life jackest on pump-barges...

No Monarchy could allow this to happen, because the People will have a direct person to blame: the buck quite literally stops at the Throne.


Monarchy can be made to work in the modern day, and frankly needs to be made to work.

Sorry for the wordy first post, but this is something I feel passionately about, so I tend to get a little out of hand at times.

 

[juanson]

Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?

In my honest opinion, definitely not. I am proud living in a republic. People should be coequal. In my opinion it is ethnically not justifiable to automatically outrank everybody else, just because you were born to a royal family.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Monarchies anymore are symbolic. Aside from possibly the Middle East and maybe SE Asia, I can't think of any absolute monarchies, where the King/Queen rules the roost. Most of today's monarchical countries have a legislature, prime minister, president....you get the picture. So they are essentially figureheads. They're harmless in the grand scheme of things, it's not like we're talking about the days of Henry VIII. As long as the people of those countries don't feel the need to vote to abolish them, then it's clear they aren't bothered by it. Also, people like a show. And when a royal dies or gets married or ascends a throne or has a baby....it's a production. It's pageantry and flash and pizazz. Look at Crown Princess Victoria's wedding, for example. Look at how excited those people were not just for her, but for the country. It's fun. I live in the US where we don't have monarchies, but I certainly wouldn't feel like they are better than me or that I'm of a lesser quality than they are, should I ever find myself living in a country that had one.


Allow me to quote Eleanor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

 

[nwinther]

Having a aristocracy where a group of people control all of the wealth and privilege just because they were born into a certain family to me is unfair, undemocratic, and pure evil.

But isn't the US filled with just that? Wealthy families that control all of the wealth etc.? You just haven't institutionalized it. Besides, aristocracy in other countries hardly "control all wealth".
I personally like the idea of granting persons and their family some privilige - the right (and duty) to live in a certain palace, a position in a legislative chamber or other things. Maybe with a time-limit or "pruning". Especially if that person has done something exceptional for the nation.

In the US (and other countries) wealthy people just buy the political influence - with more serious consequences to the population than in most any (constitutional) monarchy (with or without aristocracy).

 

[FanofMonaco]

The Greeks and Romans have had both democracies and monarchies many times. Each form was successfull for awhile but eventually ended up in failure. For this reason I don't really think the form of government is that important. What is important is too have a well written constitution, a strong leader and a government that follows the constitution as written.

 

[David V]

The Greeks and Romans have had both democracies and monarchies many times. Each form was successfull for awhile but eventually ended up in failure. For this reason I don't really think the form of government is that important.

A number of Greek city-states had their "day in the sun" like Athens and Sparta, then came Macedon which expanded its empire under Alexander. Then came the turn of Rome, and Pax Romana was one of the longer periods of relative peace in history. Certainly European history, until the last 20 years. But all of those states laid the foundation principles for modern political structures.

What is important is too have a well written constitution, a strong leader and a government that follows the constitution as written.

The UK doesn't have a written constitution, is political structure evolving as a matter of custom. Even Israel doesn't have a written constitution, for instance.

Sadly history shows that even a liberal, democratic constitution on paper doesn't always translate into practice.

 

[Smart]

Do you think that the concept of royalty these days is relevant? Do you think that in this day and age, there should be such things as royal families?

1. While I'm totally against the current reigning royal houses. (with a couple exceptions here and there), they are and will continue to be relevant. In the same way Elvis Presley or James Mason is relevant, long after their deaths. And if you want to go one step further, considering how many people know and respect King David and/or King Solomon -- 3000 years later, it's unlikely there will be a quantum leap completely forgetting the royals.
2. the bolded portion of the quote is in respect to "royal families" - obviously regardless of what happens, unless all members of said family dies, that family will continue to exist. So this is invalid. However, I assume you meant ruling royal families.

A number of Greek city-states had their "day in the sun" like Athens and Sparta, then came Macedon which expanded its empire under Alexander. Then came the turn of Rome, and Pax Romana was one of the longer periods of relative peace in history. Certainly European history, until the last 20 years. But all of those states laid the foundation principles for modern political structures.



The UK doesn't have a written constitution, is political structure evolving as a matter of custom. Even Israel doesn't have a written constitution, for instance.

Sadly history shows that even a liberal, democratic constitution on paper doesn't always translate into practice.

Yes, while that is true, it can be said that the UK - especially England would profit from a formal constitution, while Israel probably would not.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

He won't according to Richard's latest tweet:
The palace it seems isn't giving in so I guess we'll have to make do with paparazzi shots and info from the guests.

New article: k after reading all that the palace is seriously beginning to piss me off they have to give us something from the evening reception!
Harry plots a 6am survivors¿ breakfast: Best man takes charge of the ¿wedmin¿ - and bacon butties | Mail Online

Where to watch and where to party: Your very own Wills and Kate wedding planner | Mail Online

Ok, not to be rude, but I have never really thought too highly of Guy Pelly, and truly hope he does not have as much pull in this wedding as some of these articles are saying. Not to be a snob, not that I know William and Harry, but this is a royal prince, and to cheapen it, somewhat, as to try and mix common vs. pomp vs. elegant vs. royal, has to be difficult at best. I mean, from what I have read of this young man, I really hope the Queen has a lot of say in this. It would seem sadly:

Charles and Camilla are determined to put their out of this world stamp on it...their inviting corporate sponsors, their own friends, their out of touchness. I am sorry, but in MY view, Camilla walks a fine line in having any say in any of this. She is NOT his mother, her mother, etc. And given the past, lady, stay out of it, or, tread lightly with advice and any input.

While I truly appreciate William and Harry's down to earth and grounded frames of mind, this is not a wedding for their common friends to really have much say. You risk..cheapening it. I am not trying to sound mean or cause trouble, but at the end of the day, they are different than us...they are royal, and while I know it is their wedding, we expect, and they should provide, the pomp and circumstance. I do very much love, given the state of the world's economical challenges, they are certainly creating a wedding that respects and acknowledges what is going on.

Just my two cents, not trying to offend anyone.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Ok, not to be rude, but I have never really thought too highly of Guy Pelly, and truly hope he does not have as much pull in this wedding as some of these articles are saying. Not to be a snob, not that I know William and Harry, but this is a royal prince, and to cheapen it, somewhat, as to try and mix common vs. pomp vs. elegant vs. royal, has to be difficult at best. I mean, from what I have read of this young man, I really hope the Queen has a lot of say in this. It would seem sadly:

Charles and Camilla are determined to put their out of this world stamp on it...their inviting corporate sponsors, their own friends, their out of touchness. I am sorry, but in MY view, Camilla walks a fine line in having any say in any of this. She is NOT his mother, her mother, etc. And given the past, lady, stay out of it, or, tread lightly with advice and any input.

While I truly appreciate William and Harry's down to earth and grounded frames of mind, this is not a wedding for their common friends to really have much say. You risk..cheapening it. I am not trying to sound mean or cause trouble, but at the end of the day, they are different than us...they are royal, and while I know it is their wedding, we expect, and they should provide, the pomp and circumstance. I do very much love, given the state of the world's economical challenges, they are certainly creating a wedding that respects and acknowledges what is going on.

Just my two cents, not trying to offend anyone.

And now you have explained one of the reasons why I have become a republican - the sheer ordinariness of William and Harry.

That they have repordely asked Guy Pelly to help organise the dancing for the evening isn't a surprise. It is what he does - run a nightclub and Harry and William enjoy clubbing at his place.

As for Camilla. If it is true that she was given the right to cross off people then remember that she would only have been given that right by William so he must also approve of her decision to cross off people - just as someone crossed off Fergie. If William had really wanted these people there then noone would have been crossed off. But I also take these reports with a grain of salt - they are from the DM and the source for the Camilla crossing off people is from one of them crossed off. Since Diana died have either of them had anything to do with William? Camilla on the other hand has been a major part of his life for the last decade as his father's partner and wife. The fact that he is including Camilla's granddaughter is his wedding party speaks volumes for how William sees Camilla.

As for the invites to friends of Charles read carefully. The one that I remember is the one that says an American billionaire is getting a free flight to America in exchange for an invite but if you read the article carefully this person is a big time supporter of Charles' charity and may very well be getting the invite for that reason.

One to compare is with is the story that a top guy from Audi is being invited and then reports of William getting an Audi for Kate as a wedding gift - now the DM headline could have been Audi execs helps William with wedding gift for Kate in exchange for invite - but that wouldn't accurately reflect the story and wouldn't be written because it would put William in a bad light - and the DM won't do that. The DM thinks that by attacking Charles they are doing a service to William and his dead mother.

The father of the groom, like fathers/parents of the groom everywhere have some say in the wedding and who is invited - just as the parents of the bride do.

 

[Skippy]

And now you have explained one of the reasons why I have become a republican - the sheer ordinariness of William and Harry.

That they have repordely asked Guy Pelly to help organise the dancing for the evening isn't a surprise. It is what he does - run a nightclub and Harry and William enjoy clubbing at his place.

As for Camilla. If it is true that she was given the right to cross off people then remember that she would only have been given that right by William so he must also approve of her decision to cross off people - just as someone crossed off Fergie. If William had really wanted these people there then noone would have been crossed off. But I also take these reports with a grain of salt - they are from the DM and the source for the Camilla crossing off people is from one of them crossed off. Since Diana died have either of them had anything to do with William? Camilla on the other hand has been a major part of his life for the last decade as his father's partner and wife. The fact that he is including Camilla's granddaughter is his wedding party speaks volumes for how William sees Camilla.

As for the invites to friends of Charles read carefully. The one that I remember is the one that says an American billionaire is getting a free flight to America in exchange for an invite but if you read the article carefully this person is a big time supporter of Charles' charity and may very well be getting the invite for that reason.

One to compare is with is the story that a top guy from Audi is being invited and then reports of William getting an Audi for Kate as a wedding gift - now the DM headline could have been Audi execs helps William with wedding gift for Kate in exchange for invite - but that wouldn't accurately reflect the story and wouldn't be written because it would put William in a bad light - and the DM won't do that. The DM thinks that by attacking Charles they are doing a service to William and his dead mother.

The father of the groom, like fathers/parents of the groom everywhere have some say in the wedding and who is invited - just as the parents of the bride do.

How do you think they should behave then? What would make them less ordinary or not at all?

 

[Iluvbertie]

How do you think they should behave then? What would make them less ordinary or not at all?

They are supposed to be princes but they don't come across as in any way different to the rest of us. Charles and his siblings were very much royal at the ages that William and Harry are now. They didn't go to clubs and get drunk publicly as Harry has done and William as well.

They don't set themselves apart in any way. If they aren't different then why should they get the privileges and the position?

I was a monarchist when I started here in 2008 but reading the posts here and realising just how ordinary William and Harry are - lacking the regal nature that royals should have - I have become an avowed republican and can't wait for the next referendum in Australia as I will certainly vote for a republic next time. I mean how could anyone actually want William as a future King and Kate - she is nice and all that -- but if the girl next door can be a princess with all that that entails then there is no reason why the girl on the other side shouldn't be able to become my Head of State - why should the one who is lucky enough to fall in love with a particular man get the position while the other is denied it?

 

[Madame Royale]

How do you think they should behave then? What would make them less ordinary or not at all?

I completely disagree with the above post

I don't see William as ordinary in any way, nor does he represent the ordinary ideal of the common person. He knows who he is, we know who he is and there is nothing ordinary about that!

So the man has had a drink or few at a nightclub? Big deal. If that's the worst of it then anyone who is inclined to judge him on that needs to get a grip.

Tell me what elected politician hasn't had a few too many drinks or found themselves in a less than desirable situation. In fact, I don't think you're a politician unless you or your dignity has been compromised in some way

It would appear that William has not found himself in such company, at least nothing which has ever come to light and until it does, I'd endeavour to suggest it hasn't happened. He's sensible and to me that's perfectly evident.

And I'd certainly want him to be my King. The man, to me, "get's it". Constitutional matters aside, the apparent ease with which he interacts with those he meets does not suggest to me he is ordinary, but quite the opposite. He is a man who despite the immense wealth and privilege, is personable and considerate. The man reflects some wonderful values though yet a good many are rather dissimilar to those of his father and his grandmother where the public are concerned. He isn't intimated to get involved and I mean hands on. And regularlyat that.

It's laughable to think this man should in some way replicate the way his father handles himself socially. If anything, you'd probably want to distance yourself from that style of social awkwardness which Charles certainly has. And it seems to be what William has done and good for him. He isn't his father. Though let it be said that that may have more to do with William being his own person, than intentionally wanting to be different to his father.

Henry has been a bit of dill but in recent years appears to be, as would be expected of someone his age, maturing into a reasonable and responsible young adult by all accounts.

Catherine may be common born, but evidently has a good deal of self respect and handles herself with such dignity. And whilst the consort of the monarch has no constitutional significance in Australia, as a dual British citizen, I have not the slightest ounce of protest that this lady should one day, as is currently expected to happen, become my Queen. And as an Australian, my sentiment is unchanged. She'll make a wonderful wife for the King of Australia in the unlikely event William actually becomes King of this continent and her external territories.

Intelligent, engaging, trustworthy and loyal. It's my opinion you'd be hard pressed to find all those qualities in your average 'girl next door'. So certainly for me, there is something quite reassuring and something very 'uncommon' about this young woman.

 

[texankitcat]

I completely disagree with the above post

I don't see William as ordinary in any way, nor does he represent the ordinary ideal of the common person. He knows who he is, we know who he is and there is nothing ordinary about that!

So the man has had a drink or few at a nightclub? Big deal. If that's the worst of it then anyone who is inclined to judge him on that needs to get a grip.

Tell me what elected politician hasn't had a few too many drinks or found themselves in a less than desirable situation. In fact, I don't think you're a politician unless you or your dignity has been compromised in some way

It would appear that William has not found himself in such company, at least nothing which has ever come to light and until it does, I'd endeavour to suggest it hasn't happened. He's sensible and to me that's perfectly evident.

And I'd certainly want him to be my King. The man, to me, "get's it". Constitutional matters aside, the apparent ease with which he interacts with those he meets does not suggest to me he is ordinary, but quite the opposite. He is a man who despite the immense wealth and privilege, is personable and considerate. The man reflects some wonderful values though yet a good many are rather dissimilar to those of his father and his grandmother where the public are concerned. He isn't intimated to get involved and I mean hands on. And regularlyat that.

It's laughable to think this man should in some way replicate the way his father handles himself socially. If anything, you'd probably want to distance yourself from that style of social awkwardness which Charles certainly has. And it seems to be what William has done and good for him. He isn't his father. Though let it be said that that may have more to do with William being his own person, than intentionally wanting to be different to his father.

Henry has been a bit of dill but in recent years appears to be, as would be expected of someone his age, maturing into a reasonable and responsible young adult by all accounts.

Catherine may be common born, but evidently has a good deal of self respect and handles herself with such dignity. And whilst the consort of the monarch has no constitutional significance in Australia, as a dual British citizen, I have not the slightest ounce of protest that this lady should one day, as is currently expected to happen, become my Queen. And as an Australian, my sentiment is unchanged. She'll make a wonderful wife for the King of Australia in the unlikely event William actually becomes King of this continent and her external territories.

Intelligent, engaging, trustworthy and loyal. It's my opinion you'd be hard pressed to find all those qualities in your average 'girl next door'. So certainly for me, there is something quite reassuring and something very 'uncommon' about this young woman.

Excellent post Madame! I wholeheartedly agree with every point. Having a monarchy that holds themselves above the common man and keeps a distance and superiority that prevents the public from relating to them is no longer acceptable. This is why Diana took the world by storm with her "common" touch and was so beloved. They may have been born Princes, but they are also human beings with considerable empathy and a desire to make a difference rather than just being stuffy, spoiled and out of touch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Excellent post Madame! I wholeheartedly agree with every point. Having a monarchy that holds themselves above the common man and keeps a distance and superiority that prevents the public from relating to them is no longer acceptable. This is why Diana took the world by storm with her "common" touch and was so beloved. They may have been born Princes, but they are also human beings with considerable empathy and a desire to make a difference rather than just being stuffy, spoiled and out of touch.

And of course you have both totally missed my point.

If they are so common and ordinary why should they have the automatic right to be Head of State and deny that right to some other common and ordinary person?

 

[Mia_mae]

And of course you have both totally missed my point.

If they are so common and ordinary why should they have the automatic right to be Head of State and deny that right to some other common and ordinary person?

Because they are son or daughter of their fathers or mothers. Simple as that. Simple as that!

Times have changed, marriage between royals were primarily for political reasons. No need for that anymore!
William should married who he wants to, not what you me or others considerer the "right" choice. And if because of that New Zealand, Canada or Australia, whatever decides to became a Republic , well that just what it will happen!

To be above it all it might have worked in the past, but today it won't. you can complaint , you can disagree but that just how things work nowadays.

Other media is reporting Beyonce and JayZ will be performing at the nightine reception at the request of Kate and William.....

Lol - these rumors are funny

WT... Listen if that happens I won't oppose someone snicking in with a camera and recording this!

I remember Kiri Te Kanawa singing at Charles and Diana' wedding. Will there be a Opera singer at this wedding?

 

[Princess of Durham]

Whoa, those comments in the first article are hilarious. Seems like a lot of people do not like Camilla.

I'm not familiar with the newspaper but it does not seem to hold the BRF or Monarchy in very high regard. Seems to me that there are some people trying very hard to convince the world that this event is not an ..... event.

 

[Madame Royale]

Because they are son or daughter of their fathers or mothers. Simple as that. Simple as that!

I didn't miss the point, contrary what that poster may like to suggest. Quite simply, I don't agree with them

 

[Iluvbertie]

Whoa, those comments in the first article are hilarious. Seems like a lot of people do not like Camilla.

I'm not familiar with the newspaper but it does not seem to hold the BRF or Monarchy in very high regard. Seems to me that there are some people trying very hard to convince the world that this event is not an ..... event.

The Express, like the Mail, was always very pro-Diana and was nicknamed at one time the 'Di-press' as they ran a story on her every day basically.

It is a tabloid paper, similar to the Mail but its website isn't as good I don't think.

The paper revered Diana and William and Harry tend to get a free pass but the rest, especially Charles and Camilla, are treated as beneath contempt.

 

[texankitcat]

And of course you have both totally missed my point.

If they are so common and ordinary why should they have the automatic right to be Head of State and deny that right to some other common and ordinary person?

You seem to contradict yourself, therefore I am at a loss in understanding your point.

From what I can gather, on one hand you seem to want them to be above the common man, only marry other Royals, and keep themselves away from the public in a mysterious shroud only to be seen when they show up to cut ribbons or dress up for formal functions. And yet isn't that they are useless, out of touch and drain the taxpayers what anti-monarchists complain about the most?

On the other hand, you find that the new generation which marries commoners and seems more open in wanting to engage the common man and bring the monarchy in a new direction in a more hands on, down to earth approach is demeaning to the traditional roles.

You can't have it both ways.