So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

I don't think either were intelligent. Elizabeth apparently also felt uneducated and a bit dull when young. I think she grew into her role brilliantly, but I don't think she was particularly intellectually blessed. None of them are. Diana was maybe slightly more self aware to know she was "thick" in the head. This is not a family that bred for intelligence or looks really.

“Not bred for intelligence or looks” makes them sound like racehorses bred to sit in the stables …

They can’t be that thick since they both managed to build savvy royal careers and great wealth …

Easy to make a home run when you’re born on third base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Lot of upper class twits mess it up … sometimes I think being born into great advantage can be a great disadvantage - exhibit A: King Charles III


Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

I don't think either were intelligent. Elizabeth apparently also felt uneducated and a bit dull when young. I think she grew into her role brilliantly, but I don't think she was particularly intellectually blessed. None of them are. Diana was maybe slightly more self aware to know she was "thick" in the head. This is not a family that bred for intelligence or looks really.

“Not bred for intelligence or looks” makes them sound like racehorses bred to sit in the stables …

They can’t be that thick since they both managed to build savvy royal careers and great wealth …

Easy to make a home run when you’re born on third base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

I don't think either were intelligent. Elizabeth apparently also felt uneducated and a bit dull when young. I think she grew into her role brilliantly, but I don't think she was particularly intellectually blessed. None of them are. Diana was maybe slightly more self aware to know she was "thick" in the head. This is not a family that bred for intelligence or looks really.

“Not bred for intelligence or looks” makes them sound like racehorses bred to sit in the stables …

They can’t be that thick since they both managed to build savvy royal careers and great wealth …

Easy to make a home run when you’re born on third base.

Not really, most people born in third base squander the fortune made by prior generations. Chuck took the Cornwall Duchy and turned it into an extremely profitable business. He has also built the Prince’s Trust, formidable foundation raising more than $150M every year.

The pageantry is just one aspect of the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious as to when he’ll revoke Beatrice and Eugenia’s titles. I also wonder when he’ll kick the Duke of Gloucester, Prince and Princes Michael of Kent, and others out of their housing.

They are grace and favor apartments and will likely continue to be used by family until they die.

Yes. They are not going to evict a bunch of 80 year olds. I'm sure the Queen made arrangements for all of them. At the same time I'm guessing they will be the last extended family to have housing for life. It won't be that way going forward - although at the moment Andrew's kids are still in grace and favor housing. I believe Anne bought her two kids houses with money the Queen gave her, so they are technically not in Crown housing. And Lady Louise and James still live with their parents.

I thought Eugenia moved to Portugal?

Why do people keep calling her Eugenia on here?

What do you want them to call her?

The same reason they think Harry should wear his uniform and that William should be king.

It's Eugenie not Eugenia PP, easier to be a d then to be helpful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

dp You don't think she had any intelligence? The way she played the media game better than Charles to me seems like she was . Everyone was on her side, and not his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

dp You don't think she had any intelligence? The way she played the media game better than Charles to me seems like she was . Everyone was on her side, and not his.

DP here, but I think she was neither intelligent nor great at long-term PR. Many people were sick of hearing her over-privileged whining before she died, much like people feel about Harry and his wife now. Both Harry and his mom weren't happy with the terms of their luxurious lifestyle so they tried to tank the monarchy. Harry is just as nuts as his mom was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

dp You don't think she had any intelligence? The way she played the media game better than Charles to me seems like she was . Everyone was on her side, and not his.

Academically she was a failure, I think she got one "D" grade in her then O levels. Most students would be expected to get 8-10 and mostly A grades to go onto do A Levels.

But she may well have had learning differences which weren't accounted for back then. Harry is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is unsuitable and has NPD. He was not given the crown by his mother who found him unsuitable and so she ruled until she died.

The person who should be the monarch is Princess Anne, but whatever... Monarchy should be dismantled and I am thrilled that Charles is the king. Hopefully, he will prove to be the last nail in the coffin.

Agree about Princess Anne. She would have whipped a Biro from her pocket and signed the damn document. Then she would have rearranged the desk and gotten on with it.

Charles is a big baby, but he’s right, those pens leak every time. And you know they have the most expensive (which doesn’t guarantee quality). They need to switch to Montblanc ballpoint.

Charles is going to get that monarchy abolished in T-10 days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

dp You don't think she had any intelligence? The way she played the media game better than Charles to me seems like she was . Everyone was on her side, and not his.

DP here, but I think she was neither intelligent nor great at long-term PR. Many people were sick of hearing her over-privileged whining before she died, much like people feel about Harry and his wife now. Both Harry and his mom weren't happy with the terms of their luxurious lifestyle so they tried to tank the monarchy. Harry is just as nuts as his mom was.

I disagree with nearly everything you wrote. Princess Diana never tried to "tank" the monarchy. She had a very unhappy childhood and married to someone who didn't love her who belonged to a highly rigid and public family. And I take offense at you saying Harry and Diana "are nuts" People with mental illness deserve to be treated with respect. Would you treat someone with cancer with this much distain? I highly doubt it. Please educate yourself. Also, if you don't want to hear any stories you can start by not responding to a thread about the crown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is genuinely hilarious.

This encapsulates so much of the dynamic between these two brothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

dp You don't think she had any intelligence? The way she played the media game better than Charles to me seems like she was . Everyone was on her side, and not his.

Academically she was a failure, I think she got one "D" grade in her then O levels. Most students would be expected to get 8-10 and mostly A grades to go onto do A Levels.

But she may well have had learning differences which weren't accounted for back then. Harry is the same.

So what? Grades to me aren't any indication of intelligence. As you say there could have been learning differences. If you have the great recall/memory you are going to do well. School expects us all to learn the same way and we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is genuinely hilarious.

This encapsulates so much of the dynamic between these two brothers.

I think you are being childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

dp You don't think she had any intelligence? The way she played the media game better than Charles to me seems like she was . Everyone was on her side, and not his.

Of course they were. She was a beautiful woman, and he is an unfortunate looking man. She also played the victim extremely well. Public opinion doesn't amount to much, because the public doesn't usually look beyond the extremely obvious.

[Anonymous]

He will be a horrible king, as he has been a horrible husbands, lover, son, military whatever he was there...
Already being called fussy hussy by the British outlets! Throwing hissy fits all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will be a horrible king, as he has been a horrible husbands, lover, son, military whatever he was there...
Already being called fussy hussy by the British outlets! Throwing hissy fits all around.

Sounds like someone else we know.