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:

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.

Speak for yourself - I couldn’t do their job and I tested in the highly superior IQ range when younger. There are different forms of intelligence. If I had any of their positions, I would likely become highly irritated then depressed by the relentless media scrutiny and endless criticism about my appearance and gestures of good will. I doubt that I could maintain a good balance of honoring tradition and adapting to changing times. I would want to use my position to do good in the world but probably go about in a heavy handed way that would make me come off as being even more of a pompous twit than Charles does. I would possibly hasten the demise of the British monarchy even faster than Charles, if I had one of the senior royal women gigs. 👑👸🌪

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is she it still on Andrew’s? He is no longer performing royal duties.

The ER is for an “Aide de Camp” to the Queen. Andrew served in such a position. Harry did not. Which is why he is happily wearing his uniform at his wedding without the ER insignia, while William stands next to him with that insignia.

Either a bunch of “royal experts” decided to collectively make up an entire story out of whole cloth about Harry being upset about this, or someone in his camp who doesn’t understand the protocol decided to whine about it to the press. Maybe they did just invent the story about him almost refusing to wear the uniform because of it, but that seems like a fairly specific thing, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is petty.

Removing the ER from Harry’s uniform while leaving it intact for pedophile Andrew is a petty act.

It’s just shows the monarchy needs to be disbanded. I’m Canadian and while I could get behind being part of the Commonwealth while the Queen was alive, I want nothing to do with a group that elevates a child molester over a son who actually served in the military honorably. It disgusts me. I hope these pedophile-protecting grifters get cut loose soon.

If William became king, could you get behind the monarchy again?

NP. Not me. He’d be worse than his father. Turn up Charles’s petty and add “incandescent rage,” a term used by all the stories about William that are supposed to sound sympathetic. Anne or Harry would be an improvement, but alas that’s not how a monarchy works.

Harry is a petulant whiny man-child.

+1 I'm so sick of hearing H&M whine about not getting their way. Harry was born into one of the wealthiest families in the world and has enjoyed immense wealth and privilege. Now he chose to separate from his royal duties and still has tens of millions more than most of us will ever see. He's still in the .01% due to the luck of birth family and inheritance, yet he goes on and on about how he feels screwed out of even more. He even stated in an interview that no one wants to be the next monarch, not even his dad or brother. He knew damn well that would harm the public support for the monarchy. Meanwhile he and his family are still sucking every penny they can out of being born a prince. Hypocritical, whiny users.

Wow - he lost his mother at a very young age and his father has poor people skills. Money and privilege is not a cure all for life’s challenges. He seems to me like someone who is doing his best to fulfill very exacting demands placed on him, and with dignity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is petty.

Removing the ER from Harry’s uniform while leaving it intact for pedophile Andrew is a petty act.

It’s just shows the monarchy needs to be disbanded. I’m Canadian and while I could get behind being part of the Commonwealth while the Queen was alive, I want nothing to do with a group that elevates a child molester over a son who actually served in the military honorably. It disgusts me. I hope these pedophile-protecting grifters get cut loose soon.

If William became king, could you get behind the monarchy again?

NP. Not me. He’d be worse than his father. Turn up Charles’s petty and add “incandescent rage,” a term used by all the stories about William that are supposed to sound sympathetic. Anne or Harry would be an improvement, but alas that’s not how a monarchy works.

Harry is a petulant whiny man-child.

+1 I'm so sick of hearing H&M whine about not getting their way. Harry was born into one of the wealthiest families in the world and has enjoyed immense wealth and privilege. Now he chose to separate from his royal duties and still has tens of millions more than most of us will ever see. He's still in the .01% due to the luck of birth family and inheritance, yet he goes on and on about how he feels screwed out of even more. He even stated in an interview that no one wants to be the next monarch, not even his dad or brother. He knew damn well that would harm the public support for the monarchy. Meanwhile he and his family are still sucking every penny they can out of being born a prince. Hypocritical, whiny users.

Wow - he lost his mother at a very young age and his father has poor people skills. Money and privilege is not a cure all for life’s challenges. He seems to me like someone who is doing his best to fulfill very exacting demands placed on him, and with dignity.

I don't think it was dignified to air personal grievances via an interview with Oprah.

I am sure they regret that but they are human. They make mistakes. Apart from that interview, he has conducted himself with friendly dignity, and carried out many royal duties very well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is petty.

Removing the ER from Harry’s uniform while leaving it intact for pedophile Andrew is a petty act.

It’s just shows the monarchy needs to be disbanded. I’m Canadian and while I could get behind being part of the Commonwealth while the Queen was alive, I want nothing to do with a group that elevates a child molester over a son who actually served in the military honorably. It disgusts me. I hope these pedophile-protecting grifters get cut loose soon.

If William became king, could you get behind the monarchy again?

NP. Not me. He’d be worse than his father. Turn up Charles’s petty and add “incandescent rage,” a term used by all the stories about William that are supposed to sound sympathetic. Anne or Harry would be an improvement, but alas that’s not how a monarchy works.

Harry is a petulant whiny man-child.

+1 I'm so sick of hearing H&M whine about not getting their way. Harry was born into one of the wealthiest families in the world and has enjoyed immense wealth and privilege. Now he chose to separate from his royal duties and still has tens of millions more than most of us will ever see. He's still in the .01% due to the luck of birth family and inheritance, yet he goes on and on about how he feels screwed out of even more. He even stated in an interview that no one wants to be the next monarch, not even his dad or brother. He knew damn well that would harm the public support for the monarchy. Meanwhile he and his family are still sucking every penny they can out of being born a prince. Hypocritical, whiny users.

Wow - he lost his mother at a very young age and his father has poor people skills. Money and privilege is not a cure all for life’s challenges. He seems to me like someone who is doing his best to fulfill very exacting demands placed on him, and with dignity.

I don't think it was dignified to air personal grievances via an interview with Oprah.

Anonymous wrote:Why is she it still on Andrew’s? He is no longer performing royal duties.

Anonymous wrote:Charles is petty.

Removing the ER from Harry’s uniform while leaving it intact for pedophile Andrew is a petty act.

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.

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