Posted by manuel
on 14/9/2009, 22:51:28, in reply to "Re: nothing new"
83.37.160.100
Yes, Joris, we have explained our positions several times. No need to repeat it again and again. You know my "motto": "if anyone can become Queen, there's no point in having a Queen".
We are not discussing about dignified people. The concept "become royal by marriage" is something I do not understand. Then, if there's a divorce, you cease to be royal. No way! A royal style is not something to put on and take off as if it were a shirt or a pullover. A royal title or style is not something you can adquire by marriage. I know I am among the minority, but...
--Previous Message--
: *All* royals started as commoners. Mere
: soldiers who were rewarded and became a
: knight, got privileges, etc., etc., etc.
: At some time they became royals for whatever
: reason (I don't need to explain; read the
: history of the nobility/royalty).
: So why NOW be against commoners marrying
: into s.c. royal families.
: They just become royals after a while.
: Princess Lilian of Sweden is imo the most
: royal and dignified person of all
: Scandinavian royals and surely she is
: respected by ALL Swedes. How royal can one
: get? Just by being born royal? She wasn't
: but her behaviour showed true royalty.
: I guess you have been spoilt by more than
: royal Sofía. But she should not be the
: standard. Imho.
:
: But this royal/commoner thing has become the
: running gag on all royalty boards, so I
: guess we have become predictable. And there
: is the old and the new school and never the
: twains will meet. But lets make love and not
: war. The old school had better accept
: because all reigning royal families adjusted
: to modern times (even Japan...).
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread