[I Buried My Guns]

The big difference being the royals of old had a smidge of class, restraint ,and had a knowledge of proper behavior.

Nowadays they are merely overly wealthy, arrogant party people who exist to have fun

After reading up on the exploits of some the younger royals, I think maybe I've been a little hard on Paris Hilton.

[muawiyah]

You err ~ the difference between the Royals of Old and the current generation is simply one of press coverage.

They've always been "into partying".

BTW, there's a remarkable similarity of "faces" since the 10th century in "the family".

[kalee]

The biggest difference was Fleet St cooperation with the palace, a well placed word and a royal scrape never was reported.

[Daveinyork]

“The big difference being the royals of old had a smidge of class, restraint ,and had a knowledge of proper behavior.”

No, they didn’t. They just didn’t have TV cameras in their faces all the time.

[Daffynition]

[C19fan]

The big difference being the royals of old had a smidge of class, restraint ,and had a knowledge of proper behavior.

That image of the Royals was cultivated by Victoria and Albert. Victoria's father and uncles, the sons of George III, were notorious womanizers, perhaps even worse, and brutes. They almost destroyed the Monarchy.

[LonePalm]

In the past the Royals had real duties. The performance of those duties required restraint and proper behavior.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)