posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 03:41 AM
Well, why does one person sit on a throne with a crown, and fronts an entire church, with jewels, and royal weddings, and family with lots of private
properties that are open only to family or persons of their choosing, and their kids never have to worry about affirmative action, even though
they're lily white.
Unlike politics and political correctness for the common-man, they don't have to be representative to rule.
Why is the other person borrowing or struggling to make ends meet, and comparing their own boring lives to royal weddings and gossip?
Well the one person was born into a royal bloodline, and the other was not.
The House of Lords was minor royalty, why use that example for one of the most ostentatious constitutional monarchies on the planet?
The difference between sitting on a throne or scrubbing it is bloodline.
That's it - bloodline equals "privilege" to royalty, and even the most mediocre, boring and unattractive royal twat can be made to look like a
It is not a station in life that's deserved or earned, which is expected of most other people.
I like royalty, because in times of trouble they can provide leadership and galvanizing symbolism.
Some of them have clearly deserved certain achievements; others probably used their birth-rights.
On the other hand one must admit that it is profoundly unfair, and becomes extremely undeserved when the royals act common.
They should at least make the effort to act royal for all their privileges.