So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I laughed and laughed. AT Charles, not with him.

The royals need to decide whether they are annointed by G*d and therefore deserving of their cushy lives, or if they're just regular humans who should be allowed to behave like regular, albeit notably douchey, human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

Camilla was literally boo'd on their first walkabout as King and Queen Consort. There's a lying infestation on this thread.

[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:

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.

I don’t know about poorly educated, but Camilla is reported to be very bright and charismatic, and a good conversationalist. She also comes from a heritage of royal mistresses. There’s a reason Charles fell in love with her and stayed in love with her.

Imagine thinking this is a good thing. Absolutely classless.

Right, pretending that being the descendant of side pieces is prestigious..or admirable! ?

Evolve people.

(I was shocked and saddened to learn, at the Tower of London, how very young Henry the 8th's executed ex-wives were. They were children being used by powerful men-including their own relatives-- to secure power and influence.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

As the eldest son of Prince Phillip, Charles inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title. Now he’s King, he can give it to Edward.

DP. He could have before too. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t like either of his brothers.

Guess again. He couldn’t give away the title until it merged with the crown (i.e., he became King). A Duke doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who inherits his title.

?

But it has merged and he still hasn’t given it despite elevating William and Kate to PoW

Earl of Wessex is 13th in line. PoW is 1st. Are you still confused? Where's the fire? It makes no difference if it happens tomorrow or in 2 years.

Makes no difference to Charles. Of course it makes a difference to Edward and Sophie.

[Anonymous]

Charles gives me Queen Cersei vibes. Obsessed with petty grievances, not as smart as he thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

As the eldest son of Prince Phillip, Charles inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title. Now he’s King, he can give it to Edward.

DP. He could have before too. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t like either of his brothers.

Guess again. He couldn’t give away the title until it merged with the crown (i.e., he became King). A Duke doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who inherits his title.

?

But it has merged and he still hasn’t given it despite elevating William and Kate to PoW

Earl of Wessex is 13th in line. PoW is 1st. Are you still confused? Where's the fire? It makes no difference if it happens tomorrow or in 2 years.

Makes no difference to Charles. Of course it makes a difference to Edward and Sophie.

Edward and Sophie have already been promoted, the title is just a technicality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

As the eldest son of Prince Phillip, Charles inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title. Now he’s King, he can give it to Edward.

DP. He could have before too. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t like either of his brothers.

Guess again. He couldn’t give away the title until it merged with the crown (i.e., he became King). A Duke doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who inherits his title.

?

But it has merged and he still hasn’t given it despite elevating William and Kate to PoW

Earl of Wessex is 13th in line. PoW is 1st. Are you still confused? Where's the fire? It makes no difference if it happens tomorrow or in 2 years.

Makes no difference to Charles. Of course it makes a difference to Edward and Sophie.

Edward and Sophie have already been promoted, the title is just a technicality.

No they haven’t. It’s not a hereditary title. Totally up to Charles whether to give it to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles gives me Queen Cersei vibes. Obsessed with petty grievances, not as smart as he thinks.

You like fantasy, I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

+1 home wrecker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I laughed and laughed. AT Charles, not with him.

The royals need to decide whether they are annointed by G*d and therefore deserving of their cushy lives, or if they're just regular humans who should be allowed to behave like regular, albeit notably douchey, human beings.

I laughed at him as well. Is this is how he acts in plain view with the wolf watching, imagine what an utter a-hole he is in private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I laughed and laughed. AT Charles, not with him.

The royals need to decide whether they are annointed by G*d and therefore deserving of their cushy lives, or if they're just regular humans who should be allowed to behave like regular, albeit notably douchey, human beings.

I laughed at him as well. Is this is how he acts in plain view with the wolf watching, imagine what an utter a-hole he is in private.

*world not wolf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I laughed and laughed. AT Charles, not with him.

The royals need to decide whether they are annointed by G*d and therefore deserving of their cushy lives, or if they're just regular humans who should be allowed to behave like regular, albeit notably douchey, human beings.

I laughed at him as well. Is this is how he acts in plain view with the wolf watching, imagine what an utter a-hole he is in private.

*world not wolf

Interesting slip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

+1 home wrecker.

Evolve. That's ancient history and love prevailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

As the eldest son of Prince Phillip, Charles inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title. Now he’s King, he can give it to Edward.

DP. He could have before too. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t like either of his brothers.

Guess again. He couldn’t give away the title until it merged with the crown (i.e., he became King). A Duke doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who inherits his title.

?

But it has merged and he still hasn’t given it despite elevating William and Kate to PoW

Earl of Wessex is 13th in line. PoW is 1st. Are you still confused? Where's the fire? It makes no difference if it happens tomorrow or in 2 years.

Makes no difference to Charles. Of course it makes a difference to Edward and Sophie.

Why the obsession about Edward and Sophie? They are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

+1 home wrecker.

But, not Charlie boy? Is he not a bigger home wrecker, you misogynists harpies?