Duggars Vs British Royals

[roddma]

I was thinking about the differences and similarities between the Duggars and British Royals and Fundamentalisms in general. One thing is they are both expected to reproduce except Royals arent expected to go full Quiver.If you are at the top of the line of succession, the baby name has to be approved by the Queen/King. Only recently have the British Royal been able to marry a person 'out of their circles' without much disapproval.The Duggars seem to have loosened up for them. I dont think Derick would have made the cut before TLC much like Kate M would not have been readily accepted 30 years ago. The British Royals may have changed some things, but I think it is a much harder life to live than the Duggars who can get off TV and go home anytime.

[Selah]

um.

:pink-shock:

[roddma]

This isnt saying i would rather be a Duggar. You would also have to admit the Royals are far better educated.

[VelociRapture]

I was thinking about the differences and similarities between the Duggars and British Royals and Fundamentalisms in general. One thing is they are both expected to reproduce except Royals arent expected to go full Quiver.If you are at the top of the line of succession, the baby name has to be approved by the Queen/King. Only recently have the British Royal been able to marry a person 'out of their circles' without much disapproval.The Duggars seem to have loosened up for them. I dont think Derick would have made the cut before TLC much like Kate M would not have been readily accepted 30 years ago. The British Royals may have changed some things, but I think it is a much harder life to live than the Duggars who can get off TV and go home anytime.

Most of the things you mention really only apply to the direct heirs to the throne. I doubt that Prince Harry would face some of the same restrictions that his brother might now that there is a little Prince and another little one on the way.

Honestly, the Queen might have a lot of say in some things, but she really seems like she has loosened up a great deal and I don't think she would interfere too much. She may have final say over the baby name and giving the ok for a direct heir to marry, but it is mostly symbolic at this point. And while members of the royal family are expected to have children, they aren't required to - for Fundies it is about as close to required as it can be.

Additionally, the members of the royal family are given far more opportunities to explore the world and learn then members of the Duggar family have ever had. They may have constraints on their lives and have to constantly be in the public eye, but I would absolutely rather be a member of that family than the Duggar family - the fact that they place an emphasis on helping others and education is enough to sell me on that.

[artdecades]

Rumor had it that Will and Kate got engaged behind the Queen's back and let it slip to the the press so that she would have to say yes. There were also rumors that he tried to get aristocratic women but no one wanted to be Queen because they would rather be rich society girls than have that burden so he married Kate. This, of course, after he strung her along for nearly 10 years.

So idk how that really relates to the Duggars, though it does make me think of Kelly Bates shopping Zach around to ATI families so he wouldn't marry Whitney.

[fundiefan]

I wouldn't want to be a Royal any more than I'd want to be a Duggar. But there are differences and I think they're huge. Assuming you are talking British Royalty, since people rarely talk of any other, while they are expected to have kids (at least the direct heirs), there is nothing whatsoever that says how many or how they should be raised. There are rules of protocol - and again, none I'd want - but those rules are life altering, not life defining. Look at Kate & William for starters - they were together for years but only got married when they were ready, not when anyone else said so. They knew kids were required and didn't marry until they were both ready to make and raise them. Kate said as much in an interview right before their wedding. Yet, they are both making their own lives withing the confines of their predefined roles. They learned from the past, they have their own priorities, they have lives that have nothing to do with their 'station'. Again, not that I'd want any of it, but they seem to be very intelligent people who have thought about their lives, their roles, obligations/responsibilities and what is important to them individually. For all the rules they have to live by, they're still making their own.

[anjulibai]

Rumor had it that Will and Kate got engaged behind the Queen's back and let it slip to the the press so that she would have to say yes. There were also rumors that he tried to get aristocratic women but no one wanted to be Queen because they would rather be rich society girls than have that burden so he married Kate. This, of course, after he strung her along for nearly 10 years.

So idk how that really relates to the Duggars, though it does make me think of Kelly Bates shopping Zach around to ATI families so he wouldn't marry Whitney.

I'm not sure where those rumors came from, but Will said he talked to his father and the queen first, but more in a normal "asking for advice of your elders" sort of way. He and Kate also had a decade long relationship before they got engaged, and he really wasn't seriously interested in anyone else.

I think royalty has a difficult life, but I'd rather be a royal any day than a Duggar. The royal families of Europe have loosened up quite a bit, including the British Royal Family.

Most of the heirs have married non-royals, including non-aristocrats. Permission may be required, but it's almost always a formality. Assuming the person the heir wants to marry isn't a jackass who regularly insults the populace, the person will be approved. And even then, your average family would likely not approve of a jackass who insults others regularly, so I don't think that's unusual.

The Queen likely was consulted about the name for little George, but I doubt in any other way than in the way many parents ask relatives for advice. In the end, the decision was up to Will and Kate. That they picked a traditional, family name says more about them then the desires of the Queen.

Royalty these days also tends to be pretty liberal about a lot of things these days. Gay rights is a notable inclusion. There's also the fact that most monarchies in Europe have now put into place equal primogeniture, meaning the eldest child succeeds, whether it's a son or daughter. And they also obviously use some birth control, because they aren't having a gazillion kids - most have 2-4 kids.

They also encourage their children to pursue higher education, to learn about peoples' cultures, and to do genuine charity work that actually addresses people's problems.

Yeah, I'd definitely rather be a royal than a Duggar.

[tabitha2]

Royalty these days also tends to be pretty liberal about a lot of things these days.

Exactly. The future queen of Sweden married her trainer and her brother is set to marry a soft porn stress who made out with porn stars :whistle: .... granted I don't know that that would fly with QEII very well but monarchy has to change with times to survive.

[Fundie Bunny]

Royalty these days also tends to be pretty liberal about a lot of things these days.

Exactly. The future queen of Sweden married her trainer and her brother is set to marry a soft porn stress who made out with porn stars :whistle: .... granted I don't know that that would fly with QEII very well but monarchy has to change with times to survive.

The current Queen of Spain used to host the news, was previously divorced, and rumor has it that she was against monarchy.

[DGayle]

I dont think Derick would have made the cut before TLC much like Kate M would not have been readily accepted 30 years ago.

That's why I can't go hard on Charles for his affair with Camilla. They were in love before he and Diana met, but they weren't allowed to marry. It's not like his love for Camilla was ever really a secret. He married out of duty and law, and Diana knew that going on. I'm not blaming either of them (she had her lovers too), but am blaming the system that resulted in the situation. I'm glad it's changed.

[roddma]

I will agree the British Royals are more lax now .Not only was Kate a 'commoner, but Kate and William lived together which was a first. While they may have a few more perks, there is as many drawbacks.They had issues with Paparazzi stalking Prince George. Fewer people know who the Duggars are. The Royals need guards 24/7 no matter where they go. Thy have to uphold strict codes of conduct. In other words no dry humping on the golf course. I see the Duggars kids and Royals as privileged but lack many freedoms. I wouldnt want to be a Duggar, but you certainly couldnt pay me enough to be a Royal.

[alba]

I wouldn't want to be a Royal any more than I'd want to be a Duggar. But there are differences and I think they're huge. Assuming you are talking British Royalty, since people rarely talk of any other, while they are expected to have kids (at least the direct heirs), there is nothing whatsoever that says how many or how they should be raised. There are rules of protocol - and again, none I'd want - but those rules are life altering, not life defining. Look at Kate & William for starters - they were together for years but only got married when they were ready, not when anyone else said so. They knew kids were required and didn't marry until they were both ready to make and raise them. Kate said as much in an interview right before their wedding. Yet, they are both making their own lives withing the confines of their predefined roles. They learned from the past, they have their own priorities, they have lives that have nothing to do with their 'station'. Again, not that I'd want any of it, but they seem to be very intelligent people who have thought about their lives, their roles, obligations/responsibilities and what is important to them individually. For all the rules they have to live by, they're still making their own.

This is the big difference between fundies and the royal family: the royal family learn from their mistakes. It seems to be a pretty common opinion round here that the Queen let William marry "middle-class"* Catherine because of the mess that was his parents' marriage.

*As a Canadian, I laughed so hard when news articles referred to Catherine as middle-class and her parents as millionaires in the same paragraph. Back home, middle-class means, well, middle-class. Not too rich and not too poor. Over here, middle-class is basically everyone who isn't working-class (which seems to be defined by career more than income, so a welder making £40k a year is working class but a teacher making £30k a year is middle-class) but doesn't have a title, no matter how much money they have.

[PegBundyOfFundies]

That's why I can't go hard on Charles for his affair with Camilla. They were in love before he and Diana met, but they weren't allowed to marry. It's not like his love for Camilla was ever really a secret. He married out of duty and law, and Diana knew that going on. I'm not blaming either of them (she had her lovers too), but am blaming the system that resulted in the situation. I'm glad it's changed.

I don't think Diana knew what was going on, and if she did she didn't know the full depth of the situation she was in. From what i've read and seen, Camilla presented herself as a "long time ago" ex and at that point just a good friend to Charles. There's pictures of her walking and talking with Diana when she was courting Charles. Young Diana was not unlike a fundie girl, pretty naive and green to the ways of the world. They say that the Queen, Charles, and Camilla herself were in the picking of Diana because she seemed like she could be manipulated. She was only 19 or 20 when she married 30 something year old Charles; I honestly think she went into things thinking that they would fall in love, have a family and reign together. And if Charles was really so serious about Camilla, he couldve did the same as his great uncle before him and abdicated the throne for love. He always had options but chose not to utilize them. The archaic protocols in place were crap and deserved changing, but not at the expense of so many hearts and homes to be broken.

[Pretzel]

This is the big difference between fundies and the royal family: the royal family learn from their mistakes. It seems to be a pretty common opinion round here that the Queen let William marry "middle-class"* Catherine because of the mess that was his parents' marriage.

*As a Canadian, I laughed so hard when news articles referred to Catherine as middle-class and her parents as millionaires in the same paragraph. Back home, middle-class means, well, middle-class. Not too rich and not too poor. Over here, middle-class is basically everyone who isn't working-class (which seems to be defined by career more than income, so a welder making £40k a year is working class but a teacher making £30k a year is middle-class) but doesn't have a title, no matter how much money they have.

I hate that talking of classes. To me, middle-class means working class, whether you're making 10K or 100k. I never got the impression our conception of classes was defined by the average yearly income but by education, social interaction and a lot more.

Kate and her new-rich parents, (IMHO:scandal-free so far and rarely mingling with anyone who's not rolling in riches, probably playing polo, golf and being members of the country club, contributing to charity with huge figures, buying their way into higher education etc.) clearly are upper-middle class/upper-class people and not what someone would perceive as a standard for "middle-class".

[Anny Nym]

*As a Canadian, I laughed so hard when news articles referred to Catherine as middle-class and her parents as millionaires in the same paragraph. Back home, middle-class means, well, middle-class. Not too rich and not too poor. Over here, middle-class is basically everyone who isn't working-class (which seems to be defined by career more than income, so a welder making £40k a year is working class but a teacher making £30k a year is middle-class) but doesn't have a title, no matter how much money they have.

No laughting matter, but a very serious thing actually! :wink-kitty:

The Middletons are considered middle class because they are"new money" and made it with using trade and sales, therefor they are Bourgeoisie aka middle class.

Upper class still is composed of "old money", traditional families (gentry, peerage, the "old families") and of course the "visible", because public acting, Royal Family. It´s actually a comparable small crowd and they don´t let anyone in easily.

The Working Class Movement in GB was very stong and historically very important, so being a member of the working class DOES NOT equal "poor" in GB (and most european countries) but instead is refering to having earned one´s money with traditional manual labor (like a welder, for example).

Back to topic:

The main difference between the Royal Family and the Duggars is, that the one is the Royal Family and the others are a rather shady couple, who got roped into a cult at some Point and are now making their money by letting a crappy TV channel, who also gave the world gems like "Toddlers & Tiaras" or "Exteme Couponing" film their kids to promote said cult...

Really, this IS a odd thread! :lol:

[alba]

No laughting matter, but a very serious thing actually! :wink-kitty:

The Middletons are considered middle class because they are"new money" and made it with using trade and sales, therefor they are Bourgeoisie aka middle class.

Upper class still is composed of "old money", traditional families (gentry, peerage, the "old families") and of course the "visible", because public acting, Royal Family. It´s actually a comparable small crowd and they don´t let anyone in easily.

The Working Class Movement in GB was very stong and historically very important, so being a member of the working class DOES NOT equal "poor" in GB (and most european countries) but instead is refering to having earned one´s money with traditional manual labor (like a welder, for example).

Back to topic:

The main difference between the Royal Family and the Duggars is, that the one is the Royal Family and the others are a rather shady couple, who got roped into a cult at some Point and are now making their money by letting a crappy TV channel, who also gave the world gems like "Toddlers & Tiaras" or "Exteme Couponing" film their kids to promote said cult...

Really, this IS a odd thread! :lol:

The bolded is what I was really trying to get at when I was comparing a teacher and a welder; it's more about culture than anything else. There isn't really an equivalent to working-class where I grew up; over there you're middle-class if you have a stable income, regardless of career.

But, yeah, I understand the distinction between British upper-class and North American upper-class, but I still find it funny that the Middletons are considered to be of the same social group as me :lol:

[Anny Nym]

:lol:

Well, you know the saying "Money can´t buy you class."

[Cleopatra7]

I don't think Diana knew what was going on, and if she did she didn't know the full depth of the situation she was in. From what i've read and seen, Camilla presented herself as a "long time ago" ex and at that point just a good friend to Charles. There's pictures of her walking and talking with Diana when she was courting Charles. Young Diana was not unlike a fundie girl, pretty naive and green to the ways of the world. They say that the Queen, Charles, and Camilla herself were in the picking of Diana because she seemed like she could be manipulated. She was only 19 or 20 when she married 30 something year old Charles; I honestly think she went into things thinking that they would fall in love, have a family and reign together. And if Charles was really so serious about Camilla, he couldve did the same as his great uncle before him and abdicated the throne for love. He always had options but chose not to utilize them. The archaic protocols in place were crap and deserved changing, but not at the expense of so many hearts and homes to be broken.

Diana has been referred to as "the last uneducated girl in England" because she was raised with no thought to her formal education (she left school without passing any O-level tests and no one was concerned about this) and to believe that her only point in life was to have babies with a fellow aristocrat, a notion that was already out of date when she was a child. In some ways, it's the same philosophy about women that we see in quiverfull, but more glamorous and with servants to do the heavy lifting in terms of childcare, cooking, and housework. If Diana hadn't married Charles, she would have married someone exactly like him, because she didn't have any idea that she could do anything else with her life besides be "Lady So-and-So, Wife of Lord X."

[FreeHannie!]

If I had to choose, I'd rather be a Royal than a Duggar (especially if I got to be one of the ones further down the line, like Zara), but that's not saying much at all. It's like choosing it to be -40 degrees every day for a year instead of +40 degrees and humid every day for a year (Canadian scale temperature lol). Neither hold much appeal at all.

[singsingsing]

I'd rather be a Duggar. I feel like it would be easier to escape and lead a normal life.

[Becket70]

With all the talk about Tim Tebow, it kind of reminds me of the royalty of old when the king would arrange marriages for his children with royalty from another kingdom so as to expand his power. JB is a big fish in a little pond right now but I can see him wanting to expand his grip on the GOP base....yes, I think he is politically motivated and has left religion behind in the dust. The way I see it, to JB religion is a means to an end and he is as phoney as they come.

[artdecades]

The current Queen of Spain used to host the news, was previously divorced, and rumor has it that she was against monarchy.

The crown princess of Denmark is Australian and worked in advertising. The crown princess of Norway was a single mother who was part of the rave scene before. Basically, the Scandinavians pick far more interesting spouses than the Brits. Even Daniel went from being Victoria's personal trainer to owning and operating a chain of gyms during their 8 years together prior to marriage. (as opposed to waity Kate-y who never worked. I would compare her to a SAHD, except SAHDs work a lot harder than Kate ever did).

[singsingsing]

Well to be honest, if I didn't have to work I probably wouldn't. I'd keep myself busy with other things and I'd probably volunteer a lot, but I definitely wouldn't work if I were independently wealthy. :D

[tabitha2]

The British Royal family are still and will continue to be the most conservative royal families in the western world...William and Catherine may have modern idea's but they are no royal rebels.

The Royal may be marrying spouses who are modern, have past's, careers and what not but once they are married those people always become conservative, dutiful and fairly regal....The savvy Royal is not going to marry someone who can't or won't adapt and is going to embarrass the monarch. I believe the other European families took note of what happened to the Windsor clan when that happened to them.

As to the DUGGARS, Jana would make a lovely royal bride...Conservative, hardworking, kind natured and photogenic.

[MoonFace]

I was thinking about the differences and similarities between the Duggars and British Royals and Fundamentalisms in general. One thing is they are both expected to reproduce except Royals arent expected to go full Quiver.If you are at the top of the line of succession, the baby name has to be approved by the Queen/King. Only recently have the British Royal been able to marry a person 'out of their circles' without much disapproval.The Duggars seem to have loosened up for them. I dont think Derick would have made the cut before TLC much like Kate M would not have been readily accepted 30 years ago. The British Royals may have changed some things, but I think it is a much harder life to live than the Duggars who can get off TV and go home anytime.

From what I read, when young Prince George was born, it's more a matter of making sure that the name given to an heir to the throne does not have any negative connotations (no Adolf's I guess) and the child, by tradition, wouldn't be named after a living royal - so no Philip or Elizabeth.