So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Way to miss the point. It’s only the honorary titles that matter and whether they still have them or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Way to miss the point. It’s only the honorary titles that matter and whether they still have them or not.

Edward was stripped of the honorary title.

[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

Meghan, is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brit here. I am not a Royalist but didn't mind the Queen. King Charles is an overprivaleged entitled prat and so incredibly boring.....

I'm going to bet you're not a real Brit.

Okay so just because I was tired and I spelt overprivileged wrong - I'm not a real Brit... Sorry mate, born Leicester Royal Infirmary, 1976 - moved to USA 10 years ago.

Now you’re going to lay it on real thick. Sure, mate.

PP, you really are living up to the stereotype of the insufferable rude American--please stop.

Now OP, you've really exposed some personal info here--you may want to ask Jeff to delete this little part of the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:King fussy pant.
He's already had a two meltdowns over leaky pens.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11206531/King-Charles-III-awkward-moment-pen.html

One of the inkwells and pens was gifted to him by Harry and William. Maybe they were also playing a joke on him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Way to miss the point. It’s only the honorary titles that matter and whether they still have them or not.

I did not miss the point. Either you or the original poster said that all, including Edward were once active duty military. That’s an alternative truth. Edward was never active duty military. He could not pass the basics. He was all pomp and no action. He earned not one medal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brit here. I am not a Royalist but didn't mind the Queen. King Charles is an overprivaleged entitled prat and so incredibly boring.....

I'm going to bet you're not a real Brit.

Okay so just because I was tired and I spelt overprivileged wrong - I'm not a real Brit... Sorry mate, born Leicester Royal Infirmary, 1976 - moved to USA 10 years ago.

Now you’re going to lay it on real thick. Sure, mate.

PP, you really are living up to the stereotype of the insufferable rude American--please stop.

Now OP, you've really exposed some personal info here--you may want to ask Jeff to delete this little part of the thread.

Why would bump someone's personal info you're so concerned about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Way to miss the point. It’s only the honorary titles that matter and whether they still have them or not.

I did not miss the point. Either you or the original poster said that all, including Edward were once active duty military. That’s an alternative truth. Edward was never active duty military. He could not pass the basics. He was all pomp and no action. He earned not one medal.

You missed the point that none of their past military service has anything whatsoever to do with the military dress they wear for formal occasions now. It’s all based up which honorary military titles they actively hold - as in currently right now. Harry and Andrew hold none. Edward holds several. I’m sorry this is so confusing for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Way to miss the point. It’s only the honorary titles that matter and whether they still have them or not.

I did not miss the point. Either you or the original poster said that all, including Edward were once active duty military. That’s an alternative truth. Edward was never active duty military. He could not pass the basics. He was all pomp and no action. He earned not one medal.

You missed the point that none of their past military service has anything whatsoever to do with the military dress they wear for formal occasions now. It’s all based up which honorary military titles they actively hold - as in currently right now. Harry and Andrew hold none. Edward holds several. I’m sorry this is so confusing for you.

DP, but it’s pretty amusing watching people fight over the nuts qualifications for military dress of the queens children and grandchildren. Like watching Ross on friends argue about dinosaur bones. I’m actually intrigued by the BRF, but all of it is so absurd.

[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.

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

I mean we’re using anonymous posters as the arbiter of Diana being dumb. I personally think Camilla, QEII, and Diana are poorly educated and not too bright. But it’s weird how Diana is the only one to be called out about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Way to miss the point. It’s only the honorary titles that matter and whether they still have them or not.

Active duty should count for something, especially if you didn’t disgrace the uniform.

[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.

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

I mean we’re using anonymous posters as the arbiter of Diana being dumb. I personally think Camilla, QEII, and Diana are poorly educated and not too bright. But it’s weird how Diana is the only one to be called out about it.

Yes exactly - quoting Jackie O declaring QEII as “dumb” is as convincing as a MS playground taunt. Did she lack the finesse to realize part of QEII’s role was to not to be overly chummy and chatty ?

Also I doubt any of these women are low IQ. They all handled tremendous pressure and scrutiny by the press and media for prolonged periods with Grace.

It is one thing to be an anti monarchist if you have sound reasons. But there is no need to disparage the intelligence of royal women while doing so.

[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.

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

I mean we’re using anonymous posters as the arbiter of Diana being dumb. I personally think Camilla, QEII, and Diana are poorly educated and not too bright. But it’s weird how Diana is the only one to be called out about it.

Yes exactly - quoting Jackie O declaring QEII as “dumb” is as convincing as a MS playground taunt. Did she lack the finesse to realize part of QEII’s role was to not to be overly chummy and chatty ?

Also I doubt any of these women are low IQ. They all handled tremendous pressure and scrutiny by the press and media for prolonged periods with Grace..

It is one thing to be an anti monarchist if you have sound reasons. But there is no need to disparage the intelligence of royal women while doing so.

Please they have a huge staff and all their interaction with anyone is totally controlled and managed. You could have an IQ of 50 and do that job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brit here. I am not a Royalist but didn't mind the Queen. King Charles is an overprivaleged entitled prat and so incredibly boring.....

I'm going to bet you're not a real Brit.

Okay so just because I was tired and I spelt overprivileged wrong - I'm not a real Brit... Sorry mate, born Leicester Royal Infirmary, 1976 - moved to USA 10 years ago.

Now you’re going to lay it on real thick. Sure, mate.

PP, you really are living up to the stereotype of the insufferable rude American--please stop.

Now OP, you've really exposed some personal info here--you may want to ask Jeff to delete this little part of the thread.

Why would bump someone's personal info you're so concerned about?

Because the info is already out there regardless of the bump--apparently, OP was too worked up about proving his provenance that he has exposed himself to some potential embarrassment. Just letting him/her know.

[Anonymous]

It seems the Commonwealth countries have started their slagging-off gesture to KCIII by leaving before he can even put his mother in the ground. Goodbye New Zealand!