The Sexualization and Celebritification of Royalty

[Yehonala]

I'm writing this in regards to the increasing sexualization of royalty. Ever since Diana the young royals of Europe have been increasingly subjected to the standards usually held by celebrities. Royalty, like celebrity, is expected to be 'hot, young, sexy," and instead of dignified and doing their duty, they are supposed to have excellent PR. They are now supposed to socialize with celebrities, be on their good side, and prove their 'relevance' in the same manner as celebrities do.

http://businesslinkshere.com/TheSexualizationandCelebritificationofRoyalty.aspx

Note: Royalty isn't supposed to be like celebrities and I dislike the fact that royals should look like Hollywood celebrities despite the fact that royalty are better than the Hollywood scum. Royals shouldn't be judged according to looks and 'sexiness.'

[AngryAmish]

1. Royalty are beneath scum

They think they have the right to rules us because God wants them to. Absurd on it's face yet the supine millions eat that shit up with both hands.

[imdjh]

4. Tribal chiefs are beneath scum.

[ThePantaloon.com]

2. No royalty

There should be no royalty in the first place. It's offensive to democracy and has no societal benefit or merit. The taxpayers of the U.K. finance a tradition of perpetuating overprivileged buffoons based solely on bloodline not merit.

[imdjh]

3. The royals are big business.

They bring in a lot of money and are wealthy in their own right. The system which perpetuates them is inheritance, they just inherit more than you or I do/have/will.

[Captain Hilts]

8. True, most of Liz's cash is family cash. She really sells over here. nt

[Fresh_Start]

5. perhaps you are on the wrong board

we don't have royalty and arguably the concept of royalty is not democratic

[timeforpeace]

11. The Kennedys are our royalty.

[Gman2]

6. Bullshit, they are twins. The celebrity culture is to compensate us for not having royalty.

We crave someone to follow. We resent not having a royal class, and all their court. The only difference is, we elevate celebs, to then watch them self destruct. I think that makes us feel better about being nobodies.

[AngryAmish]

10. good post

[sarge43]

7. The sexual shenanigans of the royals has been media fodder

since there's been a media. As for celeb status they are celebrities, always have been and they've socialized with celebrities all during the 20th century and before.

Edward VII, when he was PoW, was part and parcel of the demi-monde of both London and Paris.

His sons, dukes of Windsor and Kent, followed suit. They kept company with the "Bright Young Things" of post WWI London.

Princess Margaret and Lord Tony were fixtures of swinging London, circa 60's.

For the record when the succession is based solely on birth order and the good will of the country (Parliament can declare Britain a republic tomorrow it so chooses), looks and 'sexiness' are part of the criteria. Diana wasn't given an OBGYN exam for virginity; it was for fertility. Her youthful photogenic good looks helped her make the cut. One of the reasons Camilla didn't get the nod. Even in her youth she photographed weatherbeaten and well used.

[Captain Hilts]

9. And movie stars were regularly photographed with Wilson, even with Hoover and moreso with the R's.

The Roosevelts had the instant tie to Broadway as well.

[sarge43]

12. Yup.

Even sensible ole HST liked that touch of Hollywood glam.

[Captain Hilts]

13. They both LOATHED that photograph! But Betty's still a bare-knuckle Dem. nt

[sarge43]

14. I heard Bess went ballistic on Harry's hindquarters.

Betty is old school Dem, gets mad and even.