|
|
Post by eclair on Jun 3, 2020 16:06:49 GMT -4
Has there ever been another family with this level of fame despite not being actors, singers, etc? Borgias? De Medicis? Hapsburgs? Chengis Khan and family? |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Machine on Jun 3, 2020 18:10:38 GMT -4
Has there ever been another family with this level of fame despite not being actors, singers, etc? I almost said the Gabor sisters - I keep forgetting that when they weren't marrying wealthy men they had acting careers. O/T Did you know two of the sisters married the same man? The second marriage only lasted one month. |
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Jun 3, 2020 18:19:19 GMT -4
Has there ever been another family with this level of fame despite not being actors, singers, etc? Borgias? De Medicis? Hapsburgs? Chengis Khan and family? I was going to say any modern royal family, although I'm fairly certain the Kardashians are more famous than all but the Mountbatten-Windsors, and even then, it's doubtful. |
|
|
|
Post by eclair on Jun 3, 2020 20:30:05 GMT -4
None of the ones I mentioned had social media, imagine if they had had it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Malle Babbe on Jun 4, 2020 6:18:41 GMT -4
I've regarded the Trumps as being similar to the Borgias, but without the good taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanchai on Jun 4, 2020 9:33:17 GMT -4
The Hiltons were famous long before the Kardashians. One of them married Elizabeth Taylor (first husband).
Also, how can we forget the other "K"s: The Kennedys! Too many of them are famous or given attention for not doing much.
ETA: I just thought of a bunch of large, rich families that used to get a lot of press, mainly just for being rich: the Vanderbilts, the Gettys, the Rockefellers. The press doesn't really cover "society" people as much any more because they're super boring and not bringing the level of super tackiness that the Kartrashians are.
|
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Jun 4, 2020 14:11:24 GMT -4
That's true--the Kennedys were business owners who became socialites and gangsters (depending on your read of history) and then got into politics. The parallel generation would be the current children to become politically engaged; it would also be the generation that does things like fight for racial justice (again, depending on your read of history) and create something on par with the Special Olympics. I fully expect any number of scandals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atreides on Jun 5, 2020 20:36:26 GMT -4
ETA: I just thought of a bunch of large, rich families that used to get a lot of press, mainly just for being rich: the Vanderbilts, the Gettys, the Rockefellers. The press doesn't really cover "society" people as much any more because they're super boring and not bringing the level of super tackiness that the Kartrashians are. This is a comment coming from the shallow end of the pool, but heck I'm in the Kardashian thread so it fits, but from what I've seen of the majority of East Coast society types is that they're not particularly photogenic. There was that Russian grifter girl a few years back who infiltrated their ranks and she was downright homely yet she fit right in with them. |
|
thvar
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 131 
|
Post by thvar on Jun 10, 2020 14:16:32 GMT -4
I think we're barking at the wrong tree here, looking for the family to be compared to the Kardashians. They are not modern Kennedys, they are modern Carringtons or Ewings. They are fancy soap opera incarnate.
And from the world point of view I seriously doubt they could compete with the Windsors. In my country many people have no idea who Kim Kardashian is, let alone any other member of the family. Everyone knows Princess Diana, Prince Charles and the Queen. No contest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wol on Jun 10, 2020 16:46:27 GMT -4
There were Truman Capote's "Swans" - Babe Paley, Lee Radziwill, CZ Guest. They dabbled in charity work but they were celebrities without any discernible talent except being decorative.
|
|
