However, it shouldn't be forgotten that Princess Beatrice's mother is at least upper class, even though a specifically unpalatable specimen. In the meantime, porn aesthetics have safely arrived in the royal family. Those below are "Kate" (which is not too bad because her real name is Catherine) and -- believe it or not -- "Chelsy". The fact that a grandson of the Queen of England is seen, dead or alive, near somebody called "Chelsy" is bad enough, but he is even "dating" her. For several years now. Didn't the hapless parents of that young woman have any upper class friends who told them: "Chelsy! What a wonderful name for a future professional porn star! If you want your daughter to augment her breasts and [I'm censoring myself here], stick with that name."
And now go, imagine the faces of next generation and weep.For comparison purposes, I have added a couple of other royal faces:
The real thing! (And haven't we all forgotten how beautiful she used to be?)
To become the ultimate royal: Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon with her father, the 14th Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne.
The Duke and Duchess of York on their honeymoon. The Royal Family fell for the fatal fallacy that if it worked once with the daughter of a nobleman, it would once again.
The Princess Royal shamelessly prettyfied by Patrick Lichfield. A royal face? Definitely!Now for the in-laws:
A royal face? Maybe just not, but infinitely better than ...
... that!
Sarah Ferguson? You must be joking. Three epithets describe her best: Vulgar, vulgar and vulgar. The result? See above and in the News of The World.
Sophie Rhys-Jones? Not quite, but good enough, considering.Some lesser royals:
The Duchess of Kent née Katharine Worsley. Landed gentry as old as the hills and infinitely more respectable.
The Duchess of Gloucester, née Brigitte van Deurs. This Danish middle class girl looks exactly the part. In fact, she could be, with her pleasant, very slightly horsey features, a Princess of Prussia.
Princess Michael of Kent, formerly Mrs. Thomas Troubridge, younger brother of Sir Peter Troubridge, 6th Baronet, née Marie Christine Baroness von Reibnitz. Undoubtedly beautiful, there is nothing wrong with her in this picture as long as one isn't bothered by such a "cute" gesture. However, that and the ultra-demure wedding dress makes me want to quote Goethe: "Intent is noticed and one is annoyed." When I first saw Princess Michael on television, I was stunned. How could a women in such a position and that beautiful be quite THAT vulgar? Her voice, her coquettish demeanour -- it's literally painful to watch her. Her upper class credentials are a bit, well, shady, her conduct does nothing to falsify that. Her royal in-laws call her "Princess Pushy".
It is difficult to pinpoint what bothers me about her. Here we have Princess Michael (right) together with Camilla Duchess of Cornwall (center) and Princess Alexandra (of Kent), The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (left) at the Guards chapel in London on the occasion of the memorial service for Lord Lichfield in 2005. To me, she looks incongrous among the two other royals. Is that because she is not English? I doubt it.I tried to be honest and did NOT go for unflattering pictures of the women I dislike and vice versa. Can we draw any conclusions from the result? I think so. Beauty has very little to do with it, prettyness even less. What about character? The Queen Mother had a backbone of tungsten carbide, which strongly showed in her handsome face, as has, in a less obvious way, her daughter. Diana was as hard as nails, which is not the same. However, she wasn't, at least not naturally, vulgar, was attractive and had true star qualities, which she decided to use to harm the family that made her. The two middleclass women, Sophie Rhys-Jones and Brigitte van Deurs, whose marriages to royals are, for all we know, still intact, have features that are not beautiful but handsome and which speak of character, spirit and a sense of humour, as does the face of the Duchess of Cornwall. So is there a guideline that might be helpful for those who are in the predicament of having to pick a royal wife? Maybe. Parentage is maybe less important than we assume, attractiveness sometimes even counterproductive. Look for the faces, dear courtier and dear royal out to find brides. Character stands for staying power when the going is rough, spirit for the absence of vulgarity, and a sense of humour for a person who will not place herself above her duty.
Dear royals: Run for the hills from Kate and Chelsy! They don't even HAVE faces.
I asked some time ago What makes a Gentleman? and found that almost as difficult to pinpoint.
7 Comment(s):
While I don't feel endogamy is important... marry and begat children with a hippo for all I care... I agree with you on one point, however... Chelsy does sound like a name in the adult entertainment industry... It's right up there with Savannah...
Don't take rants like this too seriously, Jenn. I am sometimes trying to be gratuitously mean. And while I think endogamy is not unimportant, I could have mentioned Zara Phillips, Princess Anne's daughter, who turned out fine in spite of her commoner father. But then, now we could speculate whether endogamy is more important for men than for women and why. Social reasons? Biological reasons? As I said, just one of those rants of mine.
Don't worry...I wasn't taking your rant seriously or I would have never brought hippos into it! A hippo and a royal... my lord what would the hippo's family think?
They might be able to improve the looks of the Dutch royals, though.
I am so glad I found your writings. Your commentary on gowns and style at CP Victoria's wedding is an absolute gem. This portion in particular, however, really caught my eye:
If one sees how once respectable (well, as respectable as glossy magazines go) society mags are celebrating scum like the Beckhams, or some scummy pop stars whose names I can’t remember, together with the Royal Family [...] one loses the faith that “bringing back titled aristocracy” would lead to anything positive, however alluring the thought may be.
Diana certainly made it known that the Royals were supposed to be a public soap opera in her book. She and that blasted Fergie helped bring the monarchy to the level of the Beckhams, and people believed it. That's what all this ranting and raving is about over the Queen's expenses, etc. Because who in their right mind would want a Victoria Beckham or a Kylie Minogue getting taxpayer money to dress like trash and parade around with a boyfriend on a beach? I certainly wouldn't, but thanks to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Fergie, Diana, and their plethora of media hounds, now the public is beginning to associate one breed with the other. Monarchy has been brought down to the lowest common denominator.
Are we quite sure there aren't any European princesses left for Prince William?
Anyway, thanks again for your insight, and I look forward to more of your posts.
Warmest regards!
ML, thanks for the kind words and please excuse my belated reply. I am neglecting this blog shamelessly, although, basically, it's the nicest one of my blogs.
I don't think Prince William would touch a European princess with a barge pole. His well meaning and nice, but incredibly stupid father has spoilt him rotten. He is so politically correct that it makes even a maggot gag and maybe he doesn't want to force something on his son (an arranged marriage) that worked out so disastrously for himself.
I laughed out loud as I read this; however, there is so much about it that sadly rings true. No one seems to value strength, grace, intelligence and character anymore. Certainly, few grasp the power of subtlety.
But - then - how on earth can you appreciate- and understand any of these things if your name is Chelsea, Britney, Mandy, Candy, Muffy, Tiffany, Tinsley, Cindi, or Brandi-with-an-"i"?
Post a Comment