Author Topic: What constitutes true royalty?  (Read 26905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2007, 08:47:01 PM »
True., Alixz.  It could also be fatal to be king. It is a brutal job, but I suppose someone has to do it.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline charley

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2007, 01:38:51 PM »
Thanks for all the great information. I was wondering about the first King ever. I guess the Egyptians would have been the first royal house, like you mentioned.  Of course they did not believe in one true God, so religion didn't play a part.
Now, why are the Vanderbilts, the Kennedy's, and Astors, etc considered American royalty?

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2007, 02:26:19 PM »
Religon played a major part in Egyptian pharaoh's role. They were "incarnation of Isis  and Osiris", after all. Also the the Chinese dynasties- they were "intercessors" to   bring good harvests and honour ancestors, whose spirits supposedly guided them.  We could go on about the Hindu, Buddist and other religous connections with their royals, but that is a dissertation.
 "American royalty" is just a collocquialism.  There is no such thing. A media creation,  like "Hollywood royalty". Money, influence, glamour but not royalty. Although some did indeed marry into it.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2007, 03:58:08 PM »
Egyptian Pharaohs were not  "ordained" or empowered by their gods, they were considered descendants of their gods and as gods themselves.

I'm not sure how the Greek Ptolemies managed to take over and spin that one, because there were dynasties before them and Alexander left Egypt to the first Ptolemy (again, Alexander gave away something that wasn't his to give, but he got away with that, too) so the Egyptians had to know that Ptolemy wasn't a descendant of their gods, but they bought it anyway.

And Robert, you are quite right that this whole discussion would make a good dissertation.

And it is true that the Vanderbilts, and the Astors married into royalty.  And Jackie Kennedy's aunt married into Russian royalty the Radziwills.  After we colonists gave Hanoverian George III the big push out, about 100 years later, we began to try to marry our daughters into a title.  Any title would do.

But aside from monetary royalty and that includes big industry and Hollywood, we have no "royalty".  We just treat some people that way.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 04:02:57 PM by Alixz »

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2007, 04:31:17 PM »
It was Lee, Jackie's sister who married the Radziwill prince. Jackie was very proud of her Bouvier heritage,  French aristos who escaped from the revolution. At least that is the story I remember.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2007, 04:46:14 PM »
Robert,

I knew it was Lee, but thought she was an aunt.  Don't know why except that I was quite young (for once I can say that) when JFK burst onto the political scene.  And aside, from Rose - the Kennedys have never been my favorite subject.

You must have read Taylor Cauldwell's Captains and the Kings that story always held more interest for me than the real Kennedys ever did.

And I know that they have been called "American Royalty" by the media for over 50 years now, but I never liked Joe, Sr. or the way he made his money or the way he treated Rose for all that.  And as we all begin to get more information that was all so "secret" back then, we begin to find out that JFK treated Jackie almost the same way.

But then the "real" or European royalty didn't treat their spouses any better.  I just always liked Rose and the way she maintained her dignity and lived so graciously during her long life.  Like Marie Feodorovna, Rose Kennedy saw the deaths of many of her children.  But Rose accepted her share of life with a dignity and equaminity that Marie never had.




tutsi

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2009, 09:43:48 PM »
Perhaps there is something in the blood that denotes a mystical significance.
It really depends also on what the original definition of "God" is.
At the very least, 2000 years old, possibly even older, like 6000 years...lol...ahem..anyway....
To understand that though one might require the great Library at Alexandria, unfortunatley, due to the Roman Emperor at the time, it was burnt down.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4439
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2009, 04:39:20 AM »
Perhaps there is something in the blood that denotes a mystical significance.

The old expression "blue blood" might have been applied to certain groups considered to have been members of the nobility, but to suggest that blood might symbolize some kind of "mystical significance" is an absurdity.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 04:54:50 AM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2009, 03:37:59 PM »
That really depends on what your ass~umption is about the holy grail. lol.

Offline Ilias_of_John

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2009, 12:53:13 AM »
No Merovigians or holy grail discussions please,
 (I have a headache).
Honour all men.
Love the brotherhood.
Fear God.
Honour the king.
1 Peter 2:17

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2907
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2009, 07:50:21 AM »
'Wallis Simpson was created Duchess of Windsor and was "highness" but not royal highness.  I remember a story about the Duke and his frustration over her not being made equal to him.  Or do I remember incorrectly here, too.    I hope not, but its been a long time since I read that one.'

Wallis Simpson was never a Highness of any kind. As the wife of a royal duke she could expect to be styled HRH the Duchess of Windsor, but was specifically excluded from the HRH in the instrument creating her husband a duke. On that basis, she could never be more than Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor (Philip Ziegler in his biography of the Duke goes into detail on all this).

As things stand, I think it would be unwise for a person close to the throne in the line of succession to marry a divorcee. This is a personal view - there is nothing in law to prevent it, although such a marriage would anyway need the monarch's consent under the Royal Marriages Act in the usual way in order to be valid at all (the Duke of Windsor's marriage was exempted from the requirements of the Act under His Majesty's Declaration of Act 1936).

Ann

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2009, 06:48:45 PM »
No Merovigians or holy grail discussions please,
 (I have a headache).


Yes one does understand the headache thing when discussing such matters!

Excuse me while I go for a swim, mermaid style LOL.

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2010, 05:20:43 AM »
I have always wondered if the Egyptian blood line lineage was connected to the Royal Houses of Europe.
Anyone care to share what they know?

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2010, 12:55:29 PM »
I have always wondered if the Egyptian blood line lineage was connected to the Royal Houses of Europe.
Anyone care to share what they know?

I started doing a family genealogy about 4 months ago and what I've discovered has challenged many of my beliefs. I think that unless the lines from the Pharaohs has died out, there is every reason to expect that many families in Europe, including the royal ones, may have a line or two of descent.

However, the problem with their breeding was all the brother and sister breedings, which weaken the blood lines. So I consider it as likely that they died out completely.

Offline jehan

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #44 on: March 12, 2010, 05:15:54 PM »
I have always wondered if the Egyptian blood line lineage was connected to the Royal Houses of Europe.
Anyone care to share what they know?

I started doing a family genealogy about 4 months ago and what I've discovered has challenged many of my beliefs. I think that unless the lines from the Pharaohs has died out, there is every reason to expect that many families in Europe, including the royal ones, may have a line or two of descent.

However, the problem with their breeding was all the brother and sister breedings, which weaken the blood lines. So I consider it as likely that they died out completely.

That and the fact that they often tended to kill each other and/or each other's children in order to claim or secure their claim to the throne.
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in. 
(leonard Cohen)