Why do the English Royals look so old?

[Anonymous]

Camilla and Charles are 75

Charles is 73.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me preface this by saying I think Queen Elizabeth looked good for her age, but Camilla and Princess Anne look very old. King Charles also. I remember looking at Kate a few years ago and thinking she had too many wrinkles for her age. I thought given their rainy climate and the fact that they always wear hats would shield them from aging as fast. They also have money which they obviously aren’t using for skincare. I have been to Europe but not the UK. Do the people of the UK typically age fast? I am in my 70s and my relatives in their 90s look younger than Camilla, Princess Anne, and King Charles.

King Charles and Camilla are in their 70's. They look their ages. I have no idea what Princess Anne looks like.

She looks like a horse, just as she always has.

Here is a picture where I think she looks good

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=camilla+parker+bowles+young&t=chromentp&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FVdKzsBmTMQM%2Fhq2.jpg

I thik Camilla looks perfectly fine, even nice.

Yeah? And what have you been smoking?

I don't get it. She looks like any other older woman. As PP said, perfectly fine, even nice.

She looks well-pulled together for her age. I aint mad at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Meghan is dark skinned and 20 lbs heavier than Kate at least. ThAt makes a huge difference

[Anonymous]

They don’t exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meghan is dark skinned and 20 lbs heavier than Kate at least. ThAt makes a huge difference

Meghan is also pretty. The others are just trying to do the best they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meghan is dark skinned and 20 lbs heavier than Kate at least. ThAt makes a huge difference

I always thought she looked much older than Harry. She doesn't look the youngest in that pic in the least. She looks her age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meghan is dark skinned and 20 lbs heavier than Kate at least. ThAt makes a huge difference

Meghan is also pretty. The others are just trying to do the best they can.

Kate is pretty too. They both are- and different. There are many variations of beautiful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at Helen Mirren. Culturally, I think they are a more natural and frankly I love it!

Um…Helen Mirren has had plenty of work done.

I don’t think so pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They look like normal aging humans. Americans are conditioned to the fake plastic non-aging look of most American celebrities.

I'm stunned by how much plastic surgery the women AND men I know in my mc suburb have. It's the norm to at least get botox regularly. Many, many of them go for the full mommy lift.

Same here in Virginia. We all get regular botox and a lot of them got tummy tucks, veneers, and implants. We're in an affluent suburb and facelifts after 60 are also the norm. My FIL in FL got hair transplant and a facelift and his wife got everything done (boobs, stomach, lips, facelift, nose). My classmates who are now in California also had everything done and they also wear hair extensions for volume as an everyday thing. Those are normal people with normal jobs or SAHM - not entertainment.

I can believe that. I have a friend who does Botox in rural Ohio. She has 300 patients in a town of 15,000. Pretty much everyone over 40 who can afford it must be getting it.

LOL - it would be great to see some research on this: % of procedures per capita or by income level. What I find annoying is this: you end up feeling pressure to do it, too, because your peer group (same age/same sex) are doing it and when they get procedures, suddenly you look 5-10 years older by comparison. Women are especially affected by this because society rewards women who are attractive. Attractive in our society is more or less synonomous with youth.

The British Royals embody tradition and defy and serve as a counter weight to many of modern society's impulses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at Helen Mirren. Culturally, I think they are a more natural and frankly I love it!

Um…Helen Mirren has had plenty of work done.

I don’t think so pp.

Helen Mirren has never had kids. That's a huge game changer. Kids for sure add wrinkles and gray hair to their moms. Not to mention what the fluctuation in weight does to a body. So even with or without cosmetic enhancements she has a leg up on most women who have had kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you not seen pics of Charles when he was young? He looks 100 times better now.

What are you talking about? He was shy, but kind of handsome… in a broken nose/side part sort of way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you not seen pics of Charles when he was young? He looks 100 times better now.

What are you talking about? He was shy, but kind of handsome… in a broken nose/side part sort of way.

LOL plus the red jug ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:English people do not age well (I am English).

This is what I was going to write. The vast majority of my genes are from Scotland and England and I've long looked older than my age.

My skin is as pale as can be and spotty. Not good for aging well.

Pale people can age well if they consistently use sunscreen. My 75 year old mother is an example of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smoking

how do you know they smoke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smoking

how do you know they smoke?

Here is an article referencing it: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/which-members-of-the-royal-family-smoke-cigarettes.html/