I think I have discovered what Queen Romney has been reading:

[phantom power]

From an apparently dead serious blog called (I shit you not) nobility.org

Thanks to Digby:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-lower-classes-have-right-to.html

A Misconception of Compassion

Not a few Americans have an aversion to social and economic inequalities. This repulsion arises not so much from philosophical convictions as from a temperamental disposition at the heart of which lies a serious misconception about the nature of compassion.

...

Christian compassion does not oblige one to feel sorry for someone who has what he needs to live in a manner suited to his social level. Christian compassion simply elicits the desire to help those who lack the means to lead a dignified life according to the demands of human nature and their status. Accordingly, there is no reason for someone to feel guilty simply because he is richer or has a higher social standing than others. Nor does having less than others make the upright man suffer; rather, he is satisfied at seeing that others have more than he.

...

The higher classes have the duty to shine in the eyes of the lower classes. The latter have the right to contemplate the splendor of the higher classes and to be inspired by it. In effect, the condition of the higher classes should stimulate members of the lower classes to improve their own situations. The contemplation of the higher classes can inspire members of the lower classes who are gifted with exceptional talents to aspire legitimately to a higher condition.

...

It cannot be denied that there are situations in which it is understandable for an aristocracy to retire from public view. If, for example, the upper classes perceive that the splendor of their social lives will be misunderstood and maliciously manipulated against them, they have the right to maintain a more discreet position in society in accordance with their good judgment.

http://nobility.org/2012/07/19/a-misconception-of-compassion/

Christian compassion does not oblige one to feel sorry for someone who has what he needs to live in a manner suited to his social level.

[TeeYiYi]

1. Queen Romney?

TYY

[phantom power]

2. yes, Ann "you people" Romney - Mitt's wife

[TeeYiYi]

3. Ok, thanks.

TYY

[hifiguy]

4. Why am I not surprised that Pius XII

turns up referenced in the original blog quoted by Digby?

[Cleita]

5. I lived in South America when I was young.

Although I'm American, my young South American friends were very much into a system that could be described as a caste system. You had a class you were born into. It was the class you would marry into and socialize in. I was often told not to play with certain children because they were from the other camp. I was also told I couldn't associate with certain children who were deemed to be of the aristocratic class. Money in theory had nothing to do with it. You could be a poor aristocrat or rich peon but you were expected to stick with your own kind. Trying to get into the upper class because you had a lot of money was unacceptable. However, it seems that the upper class did have most of the money and the lower class were subsistence, dirt poor.

It seems that the upper classes liked the system because it provided a lot of cheap labor. They tolerated a middle class because they needed doctors, lawyers, teachers and merchants as long as they didn't expect to go to the same social events and belong to the same clubs as the aristocracy. Americans were considered middle class with too much money. The aristocracy didn't like their middle class having too much money either. I see over the last fifty years that system is breaking down thanks to leaders from the lower ranks like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, the cast system is being broken down.

However, I don't think the Romneys, in that kind society, would be considered anything but social climbers and vulgarians. So it amuses me that they would snoot down their noses at anybody as being inferior to them.

[phantom power]

8. I think we in America under-appreciate how many Americans are aristo-philes

I used to consider it a goofy but mostly harmless thing, like the people who obsessively followed Princess Di. But it's a latent force that can be lased into political phenomena like Tea-baggery, or Randian worship of plutocrats.

[wandy]

6. That date has to be wrong. 1312/07/19 would be more like it.

[white_wolf]

7. Okay, I know I use this word a lot, but it fits this time.

These people are the very definition of reactionary.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. "You people", "It's our turn"

The Romneys definitely seem to have "entitlement issues" IMHO! When I initially suggested that this election would boil down to a contest between the 1% (Romney) and 99% (Obama), I was thinking of it being such in a more metaphorical sense but the way the Romney's are acting, it seems to be becoming more literal than I could have possibly imagined.