racheva wrote:Lonikins wrote:NCDS wrote:
I'm guessing the bit more is because they were born with a title? To me their title means nothing they are just rich kids. No different than Paris Hilton.
Don't let my mom catch me saying that though I might get disowned. Though her attachment I think is more because they are Princess Diana's kids and she loved her.
It's all good though because I also don't understand why people like sports either.
I would definitely not compare Harry and William to Paris Hilton - they've been brought up with far more spotlight on them than any rich child and they've been groomed to be contributing members of society. William and Harry were both in the military and they do extensive charitable work, which is far more than I can say for Paris HiltonWho would probably wouldn't be on the same level as them if she hadn't put out a certain video - and even now her star has faded pretty far.
There's a lot a Queen/King has to actually do even if they aren't the actual ruling head of the nation - I've learned a lot watching Victoria and the Crown. I don't think I would ever want to be Queen of a nation (but I probably also don't want to be President
But I could also judge Harry by the fact that he thought dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween would be a hoot. Point is, he's just a dude who is famous because he was born into royalty. Doesn't mean he's a better person. Good on the royals for doing something with their fame, but please let us not say he is famous for a ~good reason, but Paris Hilton is famous for a bad reason because she had a sex tape. I don't like the connotations there.
If I had to judge what is more appropriate I would pick the sex tape over a Nazi costume any day of the week.
