Previous Message

Then you are different becaue you are relying only on your own subjective perception of public figures who I would certainly not be interested in if they were as you say "irrelevant" and "non-existing". In fact, in the bigger picture of human history and European history, anything is possible and anything is therefore relevant - did Cromwell know that Charles II would follow him? Did the republicans in Spain in the 1930's know that a boy called Juan Carlos would one day be king? So history is always unpredictable, and everything is in fact "relevant" if you prefer to be objective and open-minded and take into account the twists and turns of past history. No one would care about a once-a-year little meet-up of 3 throne claimants in France if in fact each of them did not equally believe their living identity was in fact still based in their existing claim to a French throne. In the wider world too - just last month, there were riotous demonstrations in Nepal for the return of the king there. My point there again being, that history and royal history is not predictable, and again that makes these non-reigning figures "relevant" - otherwise, you are just fixated by people who are has-beens that just belong in a social column, and I admit that's certainly not my "interest" at all.