So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Jackie Kennedy met Queen Elizabeth in 1961 and 1962. In the 60 years since then, the Queen developed enough smarts to do an admirable job as Queen.
Jackie married a man to pay her bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A horrible king since he’s a horrible person.

When Diana died there was pretty all food press about her. Then a couple of years before Charles and Camilla were public and getting married, nasty stories about her were being leaked. So the Palace protected her until Charles life was more important. Make Diana look bad and a more favorable view of Camilla. Sad. It’s no wonder Harry doesn’t trust the Palace.

And if Diana were alive today, would Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla? Probably not.

So far all of DCUM’s predictions about what the BRF will do have been wrong.
Diana was only important until her kids reached the age of maturity. At that point the BRF’s attention would focus on them.
If past performance is an indication of future behavior, Diana would not do well. You can chase unsuitable men for only so long. Eventually, you land on one. And her past choices have not been ideal.

I agree. Diana was one of those women who couldn’t be single for a minute. She would have ended up remarried to someone considered unsuitable and her popularity would have declined. Once she remarried, especially if she was married to someone other than a British aristocrat, the public would have been accepting of Charles marrying Camilla. It’s possible C&C would have been married sooner had this been the case.

Also, sadly, the public tends to lose interest in women as they age and their looks fade. Diana had a strong need to be adored, both by the man in her life and the public. She would have struggled greatly once she lost her draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A horrible king since he’s a horrible person.

When Diana died there was pretty all food press about her. Then a couple of years before Charles and Camilla were public and getting married, nasty stories about her were being leaked. So the Palace protected her until Charles life was more important. Make Diana look bad and a more favorable view of Camilla. Sad. It’s no wonder Harry doesn’t trust the Palace.

And if Diana were alive today, would Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla? Probably not.

So far all of DCUM’s predictions about what the BRF will do have been wrong.
Diana was only important until her kids reached the age of maturity. At that point the BRF’s attention would focus on them.
If past performance is an indication of future behavior, Diana would not do well. You can chase unsuitable men for only so long. Eventually, you land on one. And her past choices have not been ideal.

I agree. Diana was one of those women who couldn’t be single for a minute. She would have ended up remarried to someone considered unsuitable and her popularity would have declined. Once she remarried, especially if she was married to someone other than a British aristocrat, the public would have been accepting of Charles marrying Camilla. It’s possible C&C would have been married sooner had this been the case.

Also, sadly, the public tends to lose interest in women as they age and their looks fade. Diana had a strong need to be adored, both by the man in her life and the public. She would have struggled greatly once she lost her draw.

Totally agreed. I think it's only the generation that was around for her wedding who idealized her and believed in a fairytale. I'm a bit younger than Will and never saw that. She was always, always tabloid trash mom would have to explain at the supermarket checkout. Seemed like a nice enough lady, but a real hot mess. The posters claiming she should be a Queen in this moment baffle me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Are we really using Jackie O as the arbiter of who is dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A horrible king since he’s a horrible person.

When Diana died there was pretty all food press about her. Then a couple of years before Charles and Camilla were public and getting married, nasty stories about her were being leaked. So the Palace protected her until Charles life was more important. Make Diana look bad and a more favorable view of Camilla. Sad. It’s no wonder Harry doesn’t trust the Palace.

And if Diana were alive today, would Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla? Probably not.

I'm really tired of how sheeple-like people can be. The chauffeur was not drunk. He was known to be a teetotaler. His family and friends were drowned out when they tried to tell the world he was not a drinker. He was framed. No need to frame anyone if the accident had been just that.

Use critical thinking skills, people. The above PP is probably correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A horrible king since he’s a horrible person.

When Diana died there was pretty all food press about her. Then a couple of years before Charles and Camilla were public and getting married, nasty stories about her were being leaked. So the Palace protected her until Charles life was more important. Make Diana look bad and a more favorable view of Camilla. Sad. It’s no wonder Harry doesn’t trust the Palace.

And if Diana were alive today, would Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla? Probably not.

I'm really tired of how sheeple-like people can be. The chauffeur was not drunk. He was known to be a teetotaler. His family and friends were drowned out when they tried to tell the world he was not a drinker. He was framed. No need to frame anyone if the accident had been just that.

Use critical thinking skills, people. The above PP is probably correct.

He should not have tried to outrun them. That was a huge error in judgment, whether he was drunk or not. It doesn’t matter if some rich person tells you to do it. Like the pilot in Kobe’s crash - he never should have pushed ahead with that trip, no matter how badly his clients wanted to get where they were going. The operator is responsible for the safety of the occupants. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Jackie Kennedy met Queen Elizabeth in 1961 and 1962. In the 60 years since then, the Queen developed enough smarts to do an admirable job as Queen.
Jackie married a man to pay her bills.

You do not get smarter with time. The job of queen is to read what is put in front of you, smile, wave, shake this hand, eat dinner with this person, etc, etc. It does not take a high IQ. It’s an actor playing a part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A horrible king since he’s a horrible person.

When Diana died there was pretty all food press about her. Then a couple of years before Charles and Camilla were public and getting married, nasty stories about her were being leaked. So the Palace protected her until Charles life was more important. Make Diana look bad and a more favorable view of Camilla. Sad. It’s no wonder Harry doesn’t trust the Palace.

And if Diana were alive today, would Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla? Probably not.

I'm really tired of how sheeple-like people can be. The chauffeur was not drunk. He was known to be a teetotaler. His family and friends were drowned out when they tried to tell the world he was not a drinker. He was framed. No need to frame anyone if the accident had been just that.

Use critical thinking skills, people. The above PP is probably correct.

He was fleeing from a man with a camera at 40mph over the speed limit. He frame himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Jackie Kennedy met Queen Elizabeth in 1961 and 1962. In the 60 years since then, the Queen developed enough smarts to do an admirable job as Queen.
Jackie married a man to pay her bills.

Early on the Queen admitted that she was not well educated overall. She worked to correct that.

Charles? I expect a pompous jerk, sticking to tradition because it's tradition. Putting his nose in the air every time someone bows or curtseys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Jackie Kennedy met Queen Elizabeth in 1961 and 1962. In the 60 years since then, the Queen developed enough smarts to do an admirable job as Queen.
Jackie married a man to pay her bills.

Early on the Queen admitted that she was not well educated overall. She worked to correct that.

Charles? I expect a pompous jerk, sticking to tradition because it's tradition. Putting his nose in the air every time someone bows or curtseys.

Not well educated does not means she was not smart. I am terribly educated, terribly clever, and terribly successful. The Queen seemed to learn enough to do her job well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Jackie Kennedy met Queen Elizabeth in 1961 and 1962. In the 60 years since then, the Queen developed enough smarts to do an admirable job as Queen.
Jackie married a man to pay her bills.

Early on the Queen admitted that she was not well educated overall. She worked to correct that.

Charles? I expect a pompous jerk, sticking to tradition because it's tradition. Putting his nose in the air every time someone bows or curtseys.

Not well educated does not means she was not smart. I am terribly educated, terribly clever, and terribly successful. The Queen seemed to learn enough to do her job well.

That's the whole point. School/book smart? No. She was only taught what her dad thought she needed.

She was smart enough to know she was ill prepared, and made arrangements to correct that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

How is acknowledging Di’s LDs had both great strengths as well as weaknesses amount to worship?

I was young when she wowed us in the commonwealth with her common touch and ability to connect with so many vulnerable people. She never pretended to be an erudite fountain of worldly wisdom, unlike Charles. She was flawed like all of us, but she cared about people.

I guess I just don’t see it as a “great strength” to be a basically nice, caring human being. People acted like it was some major stroke of genius for her to smile, enjoy being around people, hug little children, cuddle a baby with AIDS, treat gay people decently …. I think all that’s great, but I don’t think it classifies her as particularly “gifted” in any way. The bar is just so low for these British royals that someone who can act like a regular human around regular people stands out as a star. As I said, I think he was probably a very nice person and actually cared about people. But not what I would call “gifted” in human interactions the way that someone like the Obamas are—they’ve got some serious EQ in addition to IQ. Diana was very pretty, very sweet, and a nice person who cared about people and had a good rapport with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think some of you are actually trying not to understand, but here goes one more time.

All the senior royal men (Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry) were at one time active duty military. They served in varying branches and for varying amounts of time, but none served a full military career all the way until full retirement. All left volunarily at some point. Therefore, NONE OF THEM are entitled to wear military dress uniform based up on their prior service under the UK rules.

However, all senior royal men hold HONORARY military titles as a matter of tradition. This also now has expanded to include Anne. With honorary military titles, you are entitled to wear military dress uniform. Neither Andrew nor Harry are senior working royals any longer - Harry by choice, Andrew not by choice. Regardless, because neither are senior working royals, neither are entitled to wear military dress.

When Harry wore it in March 2020, he had announced his departure, but had not actually departed yet and was still techinically a senior working royal at that moment.

Edward was never active duty. He dropped out of basic training.
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-edward-slammed-military-uniform-after-quitting-basic-training-1742466?amp=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

How is acknowledging Di’s LDs had both great strengths as well as weaknesses amount to worship?

I was young when she wowed us in the commonwealth with her common touch and ability to connect with so many vulnerable people. She never pretended to be an erudite fountain of worldly wisdom, unlike Charles. She was flawed like all of us, but she cared about people.

I guess I just don’t see it as a “great strength” to be a basically nice, caring human being. People acted like it was some major stroke of genius for her to smile, enjoy being around people, hug little children, cuddle a baby with AIDS, treat gay people decently …. I think all that’s great, but I don’t think it classifies her as particularly “gifted” in any way. The bar is just so low for these British royals that someone who can act like a regular human around regular people stands out as a star. As I said, I think he was probably a very nice person and actually cared about people. But not what I would call “gifted” in human interactions the way that someone like the Obamas are—they’ve got some serious EQ in addition to IQ. Diana was very pretty, very sweet, and a nice person who cared about people and had a good rapport with kids.

Don't you think that the Obamas share that same charisma with the Countess of Sussex. Clearly, Meghan Markel was more than able to lead the monarchy into its next era. She could have re-assigned Charles duties with elan, and ensured that the so called "working royals" actually worked. This would have given her an opportunity to put her husband's aunt and uncles out to pasture in a gracious way so that the next generation provide the British with a more engaging royal family.

I give Charles a few months on the throne until he turns it over to William and William brings Harry and Meghan back as co-CEOs of the BRF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

How is acknowledging Di’s LDs had both great strengths as well as weaknesses amount to worship?

I was young when she wowed us in the commonwealth with her common touch and ability to connect with so many vulnerable people. She never pretended to be an erudite fountain of worldly wisdom, unlike Charles. She was flawed like all of us, but she cared about people.

I guess I just don’t see it as a “great strength” to be a basically nice, caring human being. People acted like it was some major stroke of genius for her to smile, enjoy being around people, hug little children, cuddle a baby with AIDS, treat gay people decently …. I think all that’s great, but I don’t think it classifies her as particularly “gifted” in any way. The bar is just so low for these British royals that someone who can act like a regular human around regular people stands out as a star. As I said, I think he was probably a very nice person and actually cared about people. But not what I would call “gifted” in human interactions the way that someone like the Obamas are—they’ve got some serious EQ in addition to IQ. Diana was very pretty, very sweet, and a nice person who cared about people and had a good rapport with kids.

Don't you think that the Obamas share that same charisma with the Countess of Sussex. Clearly, Meghan Markel was more than able to lead the monarchy into its next era. She could have re-assigned Charles duties with elan, and ensured that the so called "working royals" actually worked. This would have given her an opportunity to put her husband's aunt and uncles out to pasture in a gracious way so that the next generation provide the British with a more engaging royal family.

I give Charles a few months on the throne until he turns it over to William and William brings Harry and Meghan back as co-CEOs of the BRF

Someone got into the sauce a little early today.