Why do people go crazy over celebrities or the royal family etc?


I’m sure that, among those who throw rocks, there are good people. :wink:


I would wager a guess that it must feel funny for her, as an American, to sign her name in that way! And maybe that’s just the tip of the iceberg.


And last names first originated for aristocrats, as well.


Yes often initially more of a title than a last name in the modern sense.
But at the very top of the hierarchy, while there are various formal titles, a first name usually suffices! Queen Elizabeth or Pope Francis…


And as I understand interestingly it was somewhat common in England in the past for a man to hyphenate his children’s last name. If a man married a prominent woman he might hyphenate their last name.


No behind that thinking is awareness of the reality that money keeps young children from going into foster care or poverty.


Foster care or an orphanage is being without your parents. Loosing a parent to death is being without a parent. Would the brothers have really been better off if both parents had died simply because they are wealthy?

I’ve known several people raised in an orphanage. It wasn’t ideal but they are decent, well functioning people as adults. Plenty of kids who experience just divorce, rich and poor, have serious problems as a result. These boys had divorce, death and a mistress turned stepmother.


True (regarding the top of the food chain). I was thinking of those classic ‘von’ or ‘de’ surnames that come before a place. If you were a farmer or carpenter in the Middle Ages your name would be just John, not John Three Trees because that would be reserved for the local nobleman.

Added: now I’m going to have to write a story about John Three Trees.


You have got to be kidding. Growing up in privilege despite the death of a parent isn’t better than poverty and/or foster care on top of dealing with a parent’s death? That’s lunacy. The former retains stability, educational opportunities, food security, etc. while the latter’s life is shattered not just emotionally but physically as well.


How is it lunacy unless money is the most important thing in the world? So you are saying it is better to be born into a rotten rich family than a good poor family? Like I said you are essentially saying that poor people have nothing of value because they lack wealth. What I am saying is that money doesn’t substitute for the really important things in life.


No I’m essentially summarizing the reality that access to wealth removes obstacles like foster care and poverty. This is pretty basic stuff if you read what I’m actually saying.


I think you missed the point. A poor orphan is in a much worst state than a rich orphan.

Two English princes who have lost their mother are in a much better off state than poor orphans in Africa or Syria who have lost their mothers and/or fathers due to war. Sure they both have endured loss but those princes will never have to worry where their next meal will come from.

Am I saying money is all important? Of course not, but it does have its uses.


No, I got the point. I just disagree with it.

Indeed they are, if money is the most important thing.

Well yes, I think you are. You haven’t qualified your statements. You are saying that poor people who are orphans are worse off than rich people who are orphans. I can imagine all sorts of ways that isn’t true. In terms of material comfort the rich kids probably are better off. But that only clearly makes them better off in total if material wealth is more important.

It seems to me the Christian Faith while not dismissing the body has always said that the condition of your soul is the most important thing. That being so a starving person could be far better off than a rich, fat person.

Access to wealth doesn’t eliminate the possibility of foster care. It does make you not poor. I agree. That is obvious. But I’m saying being poor isn’t as bad as being rich and living in a horrible situation.


I know a fair few children in foster care -contrary to the seeming opinion of some on here they are not all living Dickensian lives of being fed on gruel and working as chimneysweeps from the age of 5 or anything.

And I know children from well-off families - not in care - who have endured horrific abuse of all sorts. Often people don’t take it as seriously because of this myth that it doesn’t happen in ‘nice’ (read ‘rich’) families.


Yeah my grandparents kept foster kids. The kids had a nice life. They of course didn’t have their true parents, and that is unfortunate. My own parents divorced. We admittedly lived fairly well, although the divorce made us live less well off. I’d have gladly traded material comfort for a happy home with two parents. You can always as an adult make yourself materially comfortable. But you can’t so easily, if at all, undo the past misfortune of an unhappy home.


So being raised by family members in the same home in which you’d been raised previously, attending the same schools, knowing there’s plenty of food in the fridge… All of this is equal to being raised by rotating strangers, frequently moving schools, and food insecurity, eh? :thinking:

That’s some hefty denial going on there.

Money isn’t everything. But it certainly can greatly impact one’s circumstances.


I still stick to my position.

Being poor and losing being in a horrible situation is worst than being rich and being in the same horrible situation.

This is why there is such a thing as life insurance. A breadwinner cannot predict his or her own death but can make sure that their families will be taken care off in the event of their deaths.


I’d rather be poor and in a happy home than be rich and be in an unhappy home.

What is being discussed is different though. The question should be, will you rather be a Somalian child who has lost his mother and not know where your next meal will come from or an English prince who has lost his mother but can continue to live in the lifestyle you’re accustomed to?



This is the reason why financial planners advise us to save money for a rainy day or for possible circumstances such as unemployment.

Unemployed is unemployed but I’d rather unemployed with savings in the bank than unemployed and broke that’s for sure.


All other things being equal it may be better to have money. All other things being equal. But then we have Jesus:

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’

Jesus said being rich is actually not good for you.

Right. And the answer isn’t clear at all. It isn’t obvious to me that knowing nothing more than this being rich is better. If materialism is true then the answer is clearly being rich is better since you’d have more material wealth. But I’m not a materialist.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.