|
Post by cm7007 on May 4, 2011 17:59:11 GMT -5
You may also like to read about Empress Catherine the Great of Russia. She is considered to be one of the greatest rulers of all time - she had dozen and dozen of lovers. I never heard her being referred to as a whore. Well, if I rememberit correctly, the King of Prussia Frederick the Great called Catherine ' the crowned' prostitute.[/quote] True, but she's not really remembered for her contributions to prostitution or "whoredom" - she's remembered for her greatness as an Empress and her cultural contributions to mankind.
|
|
|
Post by emmeline on May 4, 2011 21:57:13 GMT -5
^Wich i think would be the case for Caroline, if she ever takes the throne.
|
|
|
Post by margarita on May 5, 2011 0:21:51 GMT -5
CM: "True, but she's not really remembered for her contributions to prostitution or "whoredom" - she's remembered for her greatness as an Empress and her cultural contributions to mankind." YES - and I read in several books about her, spoke to Russians and had some lessons in Russian history I guess Kings=men (especially back then) always used to have fun with many women beside their wifes. They had the power and the money - like Ekaterina II. For a macho it is very hard to take when there comes a woman and does the same with men: choose them, use them, dump them and be a great sovereign. She was no prostitute but had fun and acted like a man. A woman who can't be controlled and is no service staff for other Kings ... but at eye level.
|
|
|
Post by actarus on May 5, 2011 10:07:29 GMT -5
Frederick was a man of his time of course, although back in 1700, sex wasn't demonized as it is nowadays. In those time in the Serenissime Republic of Venice there were plenty of courtesans who were well educated and intelligent women. Intelligence and education were fundamental requirements to become a courtesan, besides beauty and grace.
I was just responding to the poster who said that Empress Catherine was never called a whore. Somebody did (Frederick the Great) That's history, not my fault.
However I wouldn't exxagerate by comparing Caroline to Catherine where cultural contributions to human kind are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by sandsla on May 17, 2011 18:43:26 GMT -5
You may also like to read about Empress Catherine the Great of Russia. She is considered to be one of the greatest rulers of all time - she had dozen and dozen of lovers. I never heard her being referred to as a whore. Well, if I rememberit correctly, the King of Prussia Frederick the Great called Catherine ' the crowned' prostitute. True, but she's not really remembered for her contributions to prostitution or "whoredom" - she's remembered for her greatness as an Empress and her cultural contributions to mankind. [/quote] And she didn't really have much of a choice, her retarded husband wasn't getting the job done so the Empress passed the information to her that no one would mind if she where to have an affair. I think she was also afraid of her nephew's genes. Catherine was a smart cookie, and she liked to have affairs with smart men that she could learn things from. Catherine's kid I think all had different fathers, but they had to have turned out better than her one time husband who had the royal blood. It was her predecessor that was really known for being the nymphomaniac I think?
|
|
|
Post by sandsla on May 17, 2011 19:47:51 GMT -5
CM: "True, but she's not really remembered for her contributions to prostitution or "whoredom" - she's remembered for her greatness as an Empress and her cultural contributions to mankind." YES - and I read in several books about her, spoke to Russians and had some lessons in Russian history I guess Kings=men (especially back then) always used to have fun with many women beside their wifes. They had the power and the money - like Ekaterina II. For a macho it is very hard to take when there comes a woman and does the same with men: choose them, use them, dump them and be a great sovereign. She was no prostitute but had fun and acted like a man. A woman who can't be controlled and is no service staff for other Kings ... but at eye level. There was a certain protocol to it. In France during the 16th and 17th century a married woman was allowed one lover at a time (most did not stick to this rule ). I should say I think they did publicly, everyone knew who everyone's lover was then though and it was allowed. Men could have more than one mistress, but if they were in the same town as their spouse they were not suppose to stay over night. Most of them set up house together and their spouses were at a separate houses or they were away fighting some war and sometimes their spouses and lovers were often good friends. The difference is marriage "then" was a business deal (for almost everyone) that had to do with their family and the family name and status, and having kids to pass your family name down to. It was what marriage was about "then". That would not work for anyone in the western world today--publicly anyway. Also you were not allowed to get pregnant by tout lover, but if you did, you stayed close to the husband and the husband would pretend like it was his. Also they could just sleep with anyone as their mistress, their lover's status had to be on a par with their own. For instance how old the family line was, made a difference, being royal by sword was higher than being royal by the robe (?) (by appointment of a king?). In other words the Grimaldi's would not have actually been thought of as pirates I guess--they would have in fact probably had the higher ranking? And how far your family line goes back made a big difference--the further back, the most likely you were royal by the sword. Your family line needed to be at least 300 years to be anyone and I think that was on the low end, your lover needed to match your rank and also be a royal if you were. If anyone remembers they were always talking about how Louis xv married his brothel girlfriend to a royal so he could have her as a mistress, otherwise she couldn't hang around him at court--no one liked or respected her, but technically because of the royal marriage that was arranged by the king she was allowed to be there. I think if a royal tried these days to hark back to this time, they would have a lot of problems especially since they have no choice but to appeal to the public and the norms of society of the day. They cannot live by separate rule--there is no court life for them today. I think Prince Charles found this out in the 1980's and maybe his own family failed to see the problem thinking he could get away with what they did, when it was a different era, even as recent as their time might seem. It just went to show them how out of touch their thinking was that Charles could marry a young women that he hardly know and keep his mistress on the side. It doesn't make a difference that he barely knew DI, or what the deal was at the beginning, or if privately she knew about Camilla. There relationship didn't fly in the public eye whatever the agreement was between them, even in England. Di knew to use the public and the media against the royal family--she sucked up to the public for power--remember she wanted to be the People's princess. Charles did what he thought he was afforded as a Royal and his personal life undid him (he was not afforded a mistress in the public eye, no one cared who he was?) People didn't understand his nonchalance about it? He thought it was his birth right but then a lot of English men do? Still it was unpopular and it affected his role as a Monarch. It destroyed his reputation forever and made him a lame duck. The fairytale wasn't much of a fairytale, no one could watch it when they knew the truth. It looks like Albert did not heed the example of Charles. The thing is in any world Charlene could not even qualify to be a mistress, and Albert's idea that he is some how doing this for public reasons and that is OK or to produce an heir is even scarier to people and it's 2011. I think Albert should take a lesson from Charles and Di and see how that worked out for them, and Diana had some Royal blood and grew up in that world. She could form a sentence at least and still had a lot more going on than Charlene, even if she was a a bit of a media whore too, she was much more savvy than Charlene with dealing with people and she had some attributes and virtues, like she had some empathy for people. Most important she was not a prostitute , she did not take piles of cash , and she did not live off Charles. Charlene comes across like one stone cold self involved glorifying gold-digger, she's a women who probably would not get an invitation as a simple dinner guest, I can't believe the place thought people were going to scramble to see her, she is no different than one of Hefner's wife and the job would probably be much more fitting for her. I mean Charlene is cold, and she has to be pretty steely to not let what people have to say about her effect her at all, I mean not to care enough to take heed and try to rectify some weaknesses and vulnerabilities that she has to take on the role she wanted. She fordn't care, she still doesn't care if the people of Monaco like her, she got Albert to marry her anyway--she uses the sugar boards to pretend like people like her instead of actually doing something to endear people to her and really get someone to like her. She doesn't care if anyone likes her as long as she thinks they have to look up to her. I am very sorry to get carried away this should be about Carolinem I hate to drag the subject of Charlene >:(into Caroline's thread. That why i cam over here.
|
|
|
Post by sandsla on May 17, 2011 20:42:16 GMT -5
Why should Caroline be Monarch.....where to start. I thought Albert might have been able to be a very good Monarch, but it seems his personal life takes priority. He doesn't want to be the CEO, but the rep. I don't have any confidence in someone as a monarch who could marry this girl, I kept thinking he might be able to turn it around if he ever got rid of this idiot girl for whatever reason she is there, and eventually people might forgive him his past choice of ever bringing her to Monaco as his kept women. These two clearly live in their own reality! So by default alone, but there are so many other reasons and one very important one is she was the one doing the heavy lifting all these years and holding the fort down. She has class, culture and maturity and more importantly a brain in her head, besides I think most female Monarchs have for the most part been well respected and strong monarchs--they are always remembered, so they must have made an impact. Albert is going to be remembered for being juvenile and his cheap ignorant trashy faux wife, but that seems to be what he wanted to be known for?
|
|
grandduchess
Full Member
The happiest royal couple ever!
Posts: 165
|
Post by grandduchess on May 17, 2011 21:05:56 GMT -5
Because Caroline is a class act! And because her kids are eye candy doesn't hurt either
|
|
|
Post by hibou on May 18, 2011 6:50:44 GMT -5
Because Caroline is a class act! And because her kids are eye candy doesn't hurt either and because I think Pierre has the brains to run Monaco, Andrea the heart, and Charlotte the beauty.
|
|
|
Post by margarita on May 18, 2011 8:01:55 GMT -5
Because Caroline is a class act! And because her kids are eye candy doesn't hurt either and because I think Pierre has the brains to run Monaco, Andrea the heart, and Charlotte the beauty. Caroline and the trio are simply the best! And we should not forget Alexandra. She is a child now but growing to a charming young lady
|
|
|
Post by hibou on May 18, 2011 8:29:57 GMT -5
and because I think Pierre has the brains to run Monaco, Andrea the heart, and Charlotte the beauty. Caroline and the trio are simply the best! And we should not forget Alexandra. She is a child now but growing to a charming young lady Good point, and if she were to take the throne they would finally be truly royal, HRH instead of HSH. Ernst would have been good for something.
|
|