Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Heirs not suited for their position.  (Read 22243 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
diamond

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 170

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 979





Ignore
« on: October 29, 2015, 09:46:51 AM »

Is it because there is the internet and we know so much more about Royal Families, that there seems to be such a clutch of heirs totally not suited for their position?

Gui and Stephanie, William and Kate (I know I am skipping Charles and Camilla), Fred and Mary, Haakon and Mette Marit all seem to find royal
duties too much effort, or use the occassion for a me me me photo shoot.
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 2618

Offline Offline

Posts: 15760





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2015, 10:45:30 AM »

I tink it is the internet.
Not so many of the previous generations were blessed with much better quality heirs (or souvereigns). Only people didn't get much information about it and also the great unwashed were not in a position to really judge the upper echelons.
A couple of days ago, I had a nice little conversation with an elderly neighbour, and we talked about women, jobs and motherhood and for some reason ended (I think en route to role models Thinking) at Kate Middleton and her euro counterparts. Funnily enough when I criticised Kate's lack of work, my neighbour grinned and said, that those poor royal ladies were getting the dull side of the medallion called feminism.
Nobody ever bat an eye in earlier times when the Queen simply disappeared for months on end for her "confinement" and nobody expected her to be hands-on with her kids and nobody asked why she wasn't working. Even the "tireless" Queen Mary (We all love hospitals) did little more than to inspect an institution for about 30 min. and that only about once a year.
The concept of the "work-a-holic" princess is fairly new. Just look up the numbers of appointments the generation of their parents had. How many events Sophia, Sonja, Silvia and etc had when their babies were little.
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Principessa

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1062

Offline Offline

Netherlands Netherlands

Posts: 15516


I am the Queen




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2015, 10:54:05 AM »

I tink it is the internet.
Not so many of the previous generations were blessed with much better quality heirs (or souvereigns). Only people didn't get much information about it and also the great unwashed were not in a position to really judge the upper echelons.
A couple of days ago, I had a nice little conversation with an elderly neighbour, and we talked about women, jobs and motherhood and for some reason ended (I think en route to role models Thinking) at Kate Middleton and her euro counterparts. Funnily enough when I criticised Kate's lack of work, my neighbour grinned and said, that those poor royal ladies were getting the dull side of the medallion called feminism.
Nobody ever bat an eye in earlier times when the Queen simply disappeared for months on end for her "confinement" and nobody expected her to be hands-on with her kids and nobody asked why she wasn't working. Even the "tireless" Queen Mary (We all love hospitals) did little more than to inspect an institution for about 30 min. and that only about once a year.
The concept of the "work-a-holic" princess is fairly new. Just look up the numbers of appointments the generation of their parents had. How many events Sophia, Sonja, Silvia and etc had when their babies were little.

An interesting view!
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 405

Offline Offline

Posts: 4065





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2015, 11:10:03 AM »

The thing about that is royals go with the times. Feminism came to help women get more responsibility and respect. Diana worked during her pregnancy and after as well as other royal ladies. Kate, Mette Marit, Stephanie, are trying to go back in time so they just have to enjoy the luxury and not the work.
Logged
ortensia

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 552

Offline Offline

Italy Italy

Posts: 2579





Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2015, 07:34:57 PM »

The old neighbor is very wise,it also has to be said that new royals are almost all born and bread in the suburbia.
So they find acceptable to be asked to work,while Stephanie de lannoy,just to name a born In an aristocratic family,strongly refuses to be forced to do events!🎃
Go Stephanie,turn back time and conquer back for all women the possibility to do nothing without being axed by other women!!!!!💤💅🏻💆💃👸🏼
Logged
Laprincess

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 1385

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 11312





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2015, 04:08:23 AM »

But what does feminism do with unsuitable "heirs"? Fred, Haakon, Willa, Gui are unsuitable but they are not women. Mary, MM, Kate and Steph are not heirs. Yes, internet exposes them. Many past monarchs would have been deemed unsuitable if there's internet during their reign. Plus, current heirs are under a lot more scrutiny because of the trend leaning toward republics. I don't think any heirs have job security (except maybe Frodo because Danes seem to like him and monarchy no matter what  Roll Eyes). Everyone will have to earn his or her position.
Logged
diamond

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 170

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 979





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2015, 12:24:31 PM »

It would be wonderful for them to actually have to earn their positions, to work and not have the attitude of "not giving a damn, we will just have the money".
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 2618

Offline Offline

Posts: 15760





Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2015, 12:53:14 PM »

But what does feminism do with unsuitable "heirs"? Fred, Haakon, Willa, Gui are unsuitable but they are not women. Mary, MM, Kate and Steph are not heirs. Yes, internet exposes them. Many past monarchs would have been deemed unsuitable if there's internet during their reign. Plus, current heirs are under a lot more scrutiny because of the trend leaning toward republics. I don't think any heirs have job security (except maybe Frodo because Danes seem to like him and monarchy no matter what  Roll Eyes). Everyone will have to earn his or her position.
That's right of course.
In much earlier times, there obviously wasn't any public, media or whatever scrutiny to judge a prince. There was competition. You either suited up or a neighbouring country with a more suitable prince might decide, your kingdom would nicely fit into their landscaping. Or a cousin or brother might slip you some ground glass into your coffee and inherit the principality from you on your deathbed.
History after the dark ages had their share of laughable princes ( my personal favourite is Prinny, fell in love with him and his whalebone corsetts while going to school in Brighton), but the societies in large relied on monarchies and as such the great unwashed did not really rock  the kasbahs.
Today's societies in the west have a completely different sense of self-esteem, most people feel that they might do a much better job at any given position as politician, as umpire at the worldcup, and of course as head of state.
And since many people of the great unwashed are in fact a lot better educated and prepared for leadership than the actual heirs, this bodes.. not well.
Also I have repeatedly stated that the ego-centric way of royal life is responsible for their lack of drive. If you never have to work for something, never have to beat competition, never have to carve out your place in society and the world at large, you are severely lacking in social skills.
And the IMO idiotic excuse that their way of life is cemented already at the time of their birth: please tell that the innumerable masses of people whose path is slimmer than a tightrobe. They still have to walk it, yet if they fail they fall down into an abyss not like the royals of today who will only get a tststs from the social media and carry.
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Jazzy

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1094

Offline Offline

Posts: 6713


All that glitters...




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2015, 06:37:33 PM »

But what does feminism do with unsuitable "heirs"? Fred, Haakon, Willa, Gui are unsuitable but they are not women. Mary, MM, Kate and Steph are not heirs. Yes, internet exposes them. Many past monarchs would have been deemed unsuitable if there's internet during their reign. Plus, current heirs are under a lot more scrutiny because of the trend leaning toward republics. I don't think any heirs have job security (except maybe Frodo because Danes seem to like him and monarchy no matter what  Roll Eyes). Everyone will have to earn his or her position.
I agree that Fred is unsuitable. But why are Haakon on the list? Just curious since I don't know their work ethic, I only make a casual remark  in their threads once in a while, unless of course its a case like millionaire-gate.
Logged

pixiecat
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 4461

Offline Offline

Cuba Cuba

Posts: 26795


Pixiecat loves to Dish!




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2015, 05:45:40 PM »

Personally, I think the fact that there are so many unsuitable heirs is the strongest argument yet for why royals are no longer necessary. 
Logged

All hail the future King Nobstante!!
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Whorish Spanx
https://31.media.tumblr.c...ine_mzekcuA9Ln1snsa9a.jpg
Jazzy

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1094

Offline Offline

Posts: 6713


All that glitters...




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2015, 07:23:57 PM »



But what does feminism do with unsuitable "heirs"? Fred, Haakon, Willa, Gui are unsuitable but they are not women. Mary, MM, Kate and Steph are not heirs. Yes, internet exposes them. Many past monarchs would have been deemed unsuitable if there's internet during their reign. Plus, current heirs are under a lot more scrutiny because of the trend leaning toward republics. I don't think any heirs have job security (except maybe Frodo because Danes seem to like him and monarchy no matter what  Roll Eyes). Everyone will have to earn his or her position.
I agree that Fred is unsuitable. But why are Haakon on the list? Just curious since I don't know their work ethic, I only make a casual remark  in their threads once in a while, unless of course its a case like millionaire-gate.

Oops Blush I meant Haakon and Gui.


Personally, I think the fact that there are so many unsuitable heirs is the strongest argument yet for why royals are no longer necessary. 
I totally agree.The whole system is antiquated. I don't see how you can have democracy with a  monarchy, even if it's constitutional.
Logged

pixiecat
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 4461

Offline Offline

Cuba Cuba

Posts: 26795


Pixiecat loves to Dish!




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2015, 08:26:32 PM »



But what does feminism do with unsuitable "heirs"? Fred, Haakon, Willa, Gui are unsuitable but they are not women. Mary, MM, Kate and Steph are not heirs. Yes, internet exposes them. Many past monarchs would have been deemed unsuitable if there's internet during their reign. Plus, current heirs are under a lot more scrutiny because of the trend leaning toward republics. I don't think any heirs have job security (except maybe Frodo because Danes seem to like him and monarchy no matter what  Roll Eyes). Everyone will have to earn his or her position.
I agree that Fred is unsuitable. But why are Haakon on the list? Just curious since I don't know their work ethic, I only make a casual remark  in their threads once in a while, unless of course its a case like millionaire-gate.

Oops Blush I meant Haakon and Gui.


Personally, I think the fact that there are so many unsuitable heirs is the strongest argument yet for why royals are no longer necessary. 
I totally agree.The whole system is antiquated. I don't see how you can have democracy with a  monarchy, even if it's constitutional.

I completely agree.  The two ideas are actually opposites. 
Logged

All hail the future King Nobstante!!
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of the Whorish Spanx
https://31.media.tumblr.c...ine_mzekcuA9Ln1snsa9a.jpg
Lovis

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 470

Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 3241





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2015, 08:33:58 PM »

I tink it is the internet.
Not so many of the previous generations were blessed with much better quality heirs (or souvereigns). Only people didn't get much information about it and also the great unwashed were not in a position to really judge the upper echelons.
A couple of days ago, I had a nice little conversation with an elderly neighbour, and we talked about women, jobs and motherhood and for some reason ended (I think en route to role models Thinking) at Kate Middleton and her euro counterparts. Funnily enough when I criticised Kate's lack of work, my neighbour grinned and said, that those poor royal ladies were getting the dull side of the medallion called feminism.
Nobody ever bat an eye in earlier times when the Queen simply disappeared for months on end for her "confinement" and nobody expected her to be hands-on with her kids and nobody asked why she wasn't working. Even the "tireless" Queen Mary (We all love hospitals) did little more than to inspect an institution for about 30 min. and that only about once a year.
The concept of the "work-a-holic" princess is fairly new. Just look up the numbers of appointments the generation of their parents had. How many events Sophia, Sonja, Silvia and etc had when their babies were little.

I remember a documentation about queen Silvia. After the wedding she claimed a typewriter in her office. The palace staff made fun of her because she actually wanted to WORK. They didnt had expect that.
Logged
Laprincess

Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 1385

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 11312





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2015, 08:43:32 PM »

But what does feminism do with unsuitable "heirs"? Fred, Haakon, Willa, Gui are unsuitable but they are not women. Mary, MM, Kate and Steph are not heirs. Yes, internet exposes them. Many past monarchs would have been deemed unsuitable if there's internet during their reign. Plus, current heirs are under a lot more scrutiny because of the trend leaning toward republics. I don't think any heirs have job security (except maybe Frodo because Danes seem to like him and monarchy no matter what  Roll Eyes). Everyone will have to earn his or her position.
I agree that Fred is unsuitable. But why are Haakon on the list? Just curious since I don't know their work ethic, I only make a casual remark  in their threads once in a while, unless of course its a case like millionaire-gate.

Haakon has been regressing in both work wise and personal wise. The marital issue seems to take a toll on his motivation and happiness. And his useless wife is highly unsuitable.
Logged
Thistle

Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 774

Offline Offline

Posts: 7489





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2015, 11:08:05 PM »

Haakon is fully on camp Freddles at this point in terms of unsuitability imo. Sometimes he can look even more useless than Frodo or Gui and that was virtually impossible for me Blink You know that someone really really sucks at being an heir when Frodo is able to look better... Yikes!
Logged

Reading can seriously damage your ignorance
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: