The QUEEN as an aristocrat.

​

ELIAS: ….You have an example of a queen that the entire world sees and knows. Now in that, when I express perception and attitude, does the queen express an attitude of better than? No, she definitely doesn't. But she also doesn't compromise her station. She doesn't perceive herself as being less than her station; she accepts her position as what it is and acts accordingly, (pause) and chooses accordingly, and in that perception, in a manner of speaking, expects respect for her position but doesn't act or express above others.

 

Let me express, this is a very important point, because the queen is ultimately what? The servant to the people.

 

The aristocracy is the position of being the protectors, the guiders, the inspirers, but also the servant to the people. Therefore, being the queen and incorporating an intent to serve are not in opposition to each other. Or, being the aristocracy and being the face of an example to others are not in opposition to each other. Being a model and being a part of the aristocracy are not in opposition to each other.

 

JEAN: (Pause) Wow.

 

ELIAS: Because it isn't what you were born to; it is what you DO, what choices you make, and how you present yourself. Once again, in your time framework, I would express you also have examples of aristocracy or royalty that chose NOT to be. Therefore, being born into it isn't automatically a given. There is choice in that also. The queen chose to be the queen; the king chose NOT to be a king – because of what? Because of their individual intent, their individual explorations in that focus, and because of their choices to move in certain directions. The king's choice NOT to be a king and not to serve the people, and not to move in the circle of aristocracy but to move in a direction of his own individual expressions, his own life, his own choices in a personal capacity. The queen generated choices also, to BE the queen, to BE the servant, and to BE in that aristocracy.

 

it isn't determined by your birth. It is determined by what you do and what your perception of yourself is.

 

--From The Aristocratic Digest 2014-2021, Session 202201091

 

MELISSA: Lyla asks, “Can you talk more about this: ‘Aristocrats do not perceive themselves to be above other people but perceive themselves to be different from other people.”

 

ELIAS: Yes. It isn’t necessarily about being above. They do see themselves as different, and therefore somewhat at times removed or separate from, that they don’t necessarily fit in other circles other than their own; that they fit with other aristocrats, but they don’t necessarily fit – in their own perception – with other circles than that, because they DO perceive themselves as different.

 

Now, I would say that that being expressed, that doesn’t necessarily have to be. That the perception of difference is natural and valid, but it doesn’t necessarily have to mean that they can’t fit in any other circle other than their own.

 

In that, let me express it in this manner: Visualize yourself or simply anyone that would be in the position of being an aristocrat. Visualize that, and then visualize them with their maid.

Now, even though they view themselves to be different than their maid, they could also – and many times did, in the past – have very intimate relationships with them: shared secrets, held tremendous trust, generated very close relationships in that. Their stations were different, but the relationships crossed those barriers. Therefore, although they viewed themselves as being different from other people such as the working class, let us say, in the past, that didn’t stop them from having very intimate, close relationships with other people.

 

MELISSA: I believe it.

 

ELIAS: Therefore, in that, this is an example of them viewing themselves as different but not necessarily above, because if they were perceiving themselves to be above or better than that servant, they wouldn’t confide in them, and they wouldn’t trust them in the capacity of sharing intimacies with them, and they wouldn’t create intimate friendships with them.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: Now, this will also illustrate to you the difference between an aristocrat and royalty, for the most part. SOMETIMES, sometimes through history, those two have been put together, royalty and aristocrat; not most of the time. Now in that, you can see an obvious difference, in which it would be very unlikely for a king to become friends with a servant or a peasant. It would be very unlikely, because the king definitely incorporates a perception that they are above and better than.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: The aristocrat doesn’t necessarily view themself to be above or better than, but simply in a different position in society. But in that, the aristocrat also, in their perception of being different, they also hold a perception that in their role in being different, they have a responsibility to care for and protect those that are different from them.

 

MELISSA: Oh, okay.

 

ELIAS: Therefore, that also creates that difference of connection that they have, whereas royalty doesn’t necessarily perceive that they have connection. They view themselves to be removed. They are not part of, and they generally don’t incorporate a perception that they hold a role of responsibility to, or protection of, the people.

 

MELISSA: And is that the difference with Queen Elizabeth, you said, because she—

 

ELIAS: Definitely.

 

MELISSA: She is an aristocrat also.

 

ELIAS: Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

MELISSA: Okay. So, most royalty are not aristocrats.

 

ELIAS: Most royalty are not.

 

MELISSA: In terms of personality type?

 

ELIAS: Correct.

 

MELISSA: Yeah. Okay.

 

ELIAS: Most royalty would not necessarily be. There are some. There have been some, and you do have one now that definitely is, but—

 

MELISSA: Prince William isn’t?

 

ELIAS: Yes.

 

MELISSA: He is one?

 

ELIAS: Yes.

 

MELISSA: Okay, that’s why I feel the comfort with—

 

ELIAS: Yes. And his wife [Kate] also.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: Yes.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: The two of them definitely are, yes.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: The other brother [Harry], no.

 

MELISSA: Right. Right.

 

ELIAS: And his wife [Meghan], no.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: But definitely the Queen is. And in that, I would also say, her husband [Prince Philip], no.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: Which also has created some difficulty and conflict between them throughout their relationship, throughout their many years together. They definitely are worthy of acknowledgement in generating a considerable work with that relationship and making it successful. But – that also would be an example that deserves commendation in tremendous difference. It is difficult for an individual that has an aristocratic personality to couple themselves with an individual that doesn’t.

 

MELISSA: Oh, okay. I was wondering about that.

 

ELIAS: Unless they incorporate one of those types of relationships first, of that significant friendship, as would be the case with the aristocrat and the maid.

 

MELISSA: Okay.

 

ELIAS: If two individuals incorporated that type of relationship first, then they could generate a successful relationship in partnership, but it would have challenges even still.

 

MELISSA: Hm.

 

ELIAS: Because the personality types would be so different. There would be clashes. There would be challenges with those types of relationships. It would be much easier and smoother with two of the same.

 

MELISSA: In general?

 

ELIAS: Yes.

 

--From Session 20200711 - posted 10 sept, 2022

​

​

​

​

​