Reply to So what kind of King will Charles be?

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "So what kind of King will Charles be?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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….

[/quote]
Diana was intelligent?[/quote]

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

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). [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics