I just saw the official pictures of the of the newlyweds and the children in the wedding and noted that the boys reminded me of the boys in the first of the Harry Potter movies.

BTW, it turns out that I am related to both Prince Harry and Meghan!

Aside: when prince William was a very little boy, many of us used to speculate that "No way did he get 50% of his genes from Charles!"

You mean Harry?

Errr, no. Not really.

What we all thought was that Prince William was far too much of a looker for Prince Charles to have been his father!

I thought Prince Charles was quite good looking as a young man.

Fortunately for the offspring, Diana was gorgeous. Queen Elizabeth II was a beautiful woman and Prince Phillip was a handsome man.

Good genes all round.

It's Harry who looks a bit different... Still, I think all is well.

Actually, I think Harry looks a lot like Charles in the face. As he's gotten older, he looks more and more like Charles to me, particularly around the eyes. William looks a lot like Diana in the face. He has her nose and mouth, especially when he smiles.

They both got more of Diana's coloring.

I think William is handsome, but Harry is extremely sexy to me. It's probably because of his military bearing. I am a sucker for a man in uniform. That's probably why I married one.

knotheadusc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, I think Harry looks a lot like Charles
> in the face. As he's gotten older, he looks more
> and more like Charles to me, particularly around
> the eyes. William looks a lot like Diana in the
> face. He has her nose and mouth, especially when
> he smiles.
>
>

Harry does indeed look a great deal like Charles, especially, like you said, around the eyes....

Does your relation mean that you'll be putting in their names for dead-dunking when they're gone? :)

No. BTW, I have native American relatives on the Bent line. I am not descended from any native American.

The native Americans are not Nephites.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 04:44PM by rhgc.

Ah, Lamanites then...? <grin>

And definitely NOT Lamanite, either. While I was in college I dated a young woman who was a grad student at Harvard who was about half Yakima indian. She was neither Lamanite nor Nephite nor any combination thereof.

Her dress was a bit plain but the beautiful diamond hair band and veil made up for it.

Her mom seems very sweet but omg those awful relatives, no wonder she didn't want them at her wedding.

Prince Henry has more of a rugged look than his brother. Consider his unshaven style albeit trimmed well and close. And he served in Afghanistan, something prior royals were want to do was actual military time in conflict zones.

Whatever good looks Charles may have had at one time are long gone. Plus, Camilla is no looker even though Diana was. Yet it was Camilla who was his mistress throughout marriage to Di.

Di was Charles better half, and always will be. Her children seemed to have inherited some of her good sense and temperament.

Nah... I think Charles and Camilla should have been married from the get go. They are clearly suited to each other. Had they been born later, I'm sure that's what would have happened.

Diana was a remarkable woman and undeniably extraordinary, but she was not suitable for Charles or life as a royal, so she couldn't have been his "better half". Moreover, despite being extraordinary, Diana was human and certainly not perfect. I think people try very hard to turn her into some kind of saint. She made mistakes, too, and reportedly suffered from borderline personality disorder and bulimia, which definitely would not have made her easy to live with. She also cheated on Charles and played games with the paparazzi.

I was very sad when Diana died, but I don't necessarily see her as better or worse than Charles. The fact is, they were simply incompatible and should not have married each other. Diana's genes provide a welcome shot of charisma and good looks to the royal family, but had Charles married Camilla in the first place, my guess is that he wouldn't be scorned the way he is today. They clearly had real love for each other. Frankly, I admire him for being able to love Camilla for who she is, rather than what she looks like. That makes him a man of substance, in my view.

Diana was destined to be extraordinary. I think she would have been, even if she and Charles had never met.

That's true. Charles married Di for her charm and good looks. Only she married for love. She would say years later their marriage was crowded as a threesome. When she married Charles she got Camilla too.

I disagree. Prince Charles married Diana because she was suitable (a virgin, very presentable, and her nobility was a plus,) plus he hoped he could make it work. He waited a long time to marry so his options (at the time) were extremely limited.

I think he did try to make it work at first, but it became clear after a period of time that it wasn't going to work.

Diana mothered her children.

Camilla mothered Charles.

And that's what made all the difference.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree. Prince Charles married Diana because
> she was suitable (a virgin, very presentable, and
> her nobility was a plus,) plus he hoped he could
> make it work. He waited a long time to marry so
> his options (at the time) were extremely limited.
>
> I think he did try to make it work at first, but
> it became clear after a period of time that it
> wasn't going to work.

True. Dealing with a person (Diana) who is BPD is extremely difficult. I have a family member who has such a struggle and it's HARD.

Charles was no saint, but neither was Diana.

Diana had many good points but she was manipulative and unstable. She was also unfaithful-perhaps first. She and Charles should never have married. They had nothing in common.

Charles was cheating on Diana before and during their marriage, with Camilla. I don't believe Di got a headstart on her husband in that department.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 03:02PM by Amyjo.

We dont know that. Diana thought he was, but she was incredibly jealous. He denied it,but could have been lying. She had an affair before we know that Charles and Camilla were together. Neither was blameless.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 03:18PM by bona dea.

It's been well documented by their biographers.

I also don't believe she was incredibly jealous. She had incredible insecurities resulting from being a product of a broken home, thrust into a marriage with a cheating husband.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 05:55PM by Amyjo.

Where is it documented Di was borderline?

She struggled with depression and an eating disorder from what I read about her life.

It is quess work, but her behavior detailed in the Morton book which she cooperated with sound like BPD. she cut herself, threw herself down the stairs while pregnant, had wild fits, made Charles give up friends and his dog, secretly cooperated with the Morton book abd lied about it,put her kids in the middle by publically criticizing their father and stalked a lover. Doesnt sound very stable to me.

Anything you described doesn't describe a BPD. Someone who is suffering from clinical depression, an unhappy marriage, and deep insecurity - well that right there can explain her instability. Being unstable does not make someone borderline.

Guesswork? Is just that. Guesswork. She has not been classified as BPD by her doctors or biographers. It's now in the public record, down to the nitty gritty details of her love affairs and her fatal car accident. Nothing about her being BPD anywhere in all of that.

She was a deeply flawed, and a deeply compassionate human being with a great capacity for love despite her sensitivity and insecurities.

She was an self-admitted cutter, and self-admitted to several suicide attempts

Holy crap! It turns out that sliced bread WAS better than Princess Di!!

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charles married Di for her charm and
> good looks. Only she married for love.

And the Royal Family simply regarded Dianna as "breeding stock".

Repugnant? Awful? Morally unconscionable?

Yes, to all the above. But that was the Royal mindset back in those days.

It is very sad when you pause to think about it.

She was a better sort than they. So at least they "bred up" for the throne. It's a given Charles isn't going to be king, but William is.

Charles dying? Unless he dies before the queen, he will be king, That is the British constitution.

Dated April 20, 2018: "Prince Charles to Succeed Queen Elizabeth as Head of the Commonwealth. The decision was reportedly made by Commonwealth leaders this morning."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a19861527/prince-charles-head-commonwealth/

At least I have a source for this 'statement'...

Not too surprising. Up until very recently, William was employed as an emergency helicopter pilot. He no longer is as he is taking up his grandfather' royal duties as Philip can no longer do them due to his advanced age

Charles will very definitely be king, and I think he will be a good one. The question is, what are they going to do about Camilla?

Put her out to pasture?

By all accounts the crown will pass to William, not to Charles. If he does become king, it will put Britain on the fast track to the demise of the monarchy.

He is despised by the public.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 06:17PM by Amyjo.

What “all accounts” are you referring to?

*** Please stick with one username. Thanks. ***

CZ (admin)

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By all accounts the crown will pass to William,
> not to Charles.

I don't understand this either, Amyjo...

Are you saying that Charles (the Queen's son) is going to die before the Queen dies?

The people of Britain don't want Charles to be king. That is why Queen Elizabeth hasn't stepped down yet. She doesn't want to transfer the monarchy to someone as unpopular as her son. His reputation was practically ruined the way he treated Diana and carried on with Camilla during their affair. The public adored Diana, and detested Charles.

It's been rumored for years the throne will pass to William before it does Charles. That Charles will never be king.

If he becomes king, it will speed up the demise of the monarchy. The Brits would rather support Prince William over Prince Charles.

Oh sorry, Elizabeth has never stepped aside because she has always been firm in that she remain until death.

Got zero to do with not wanting to pass it on to her son.

The only way that William will become king and not Charles is if Charles dies before his mother, or he abdicates.

It's that simple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 06:28PM by angela.

This is the current British law that determines succession to the British throne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013


Unless Charles dies before his mother, he is the next in line. It won't skip to William so not sure where you are getting your information. Would love to see your documentation as to why you are suggesting otherwise?

That is simple British law.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By all accounts the crown will pass to William,
> not to Charles. If he does become king, it will
> put Britain on the fast track to the demise of the
> monarchy.
>
> He is despised by the public.


So, you are suggesting that he will abdicate like his great uncle?

If that is what's required to hand the throne over to William.

William is the next-in-line I've been hearing for years from listening to the media.

It's unimaginable that Charles would be king given his record. He's a scoundrel. Even the Queen has her boundaries.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that is what's required to hand the throne over
> to William.
>
> William is the next-in-line I've been hearing for
> years from listening to the media.
>
> It's unimaginable that Charles would be king given
> his record. He's a scoundrel. Even the Queen has
> her boundaries.

I can't imagine him abdicating, and I doubt he will die before his mother.

The abdication of Edward caused such a crisis. Even Elizabeth knows the risks as it played out in her own family as a young girl. Bet she instilled in Charles that it's agains one's royal duty to abdicate.

I would also be surprised if Kate is that anxious to have her husband king sooner rather than later.

I would check your sources, AmyJo.

The Queen made a vow to serve until her death. That is the way of the British monarchy. No way at all, ever, for zero reason, would she step aside.

The main reason people postulate that Charles will never be king is that QEII is so spry and healthy despite her 92 yrs. He is in his 60s now. Who knows which one will last longer.

There is NO WAY that William could be crowned king if his father were still alive.

The rules of succession (as someone else mentioned) are 100% set and there is no skipping around by choice.

I don't think that Charles is all that despised at all. Maybe so when people loved the beautiful and sad and ill-fated Diana.

And in any case, the public has not ever had much/any say in who their monarch is, especially in days of yore. If the modern Brits want to rise up against their country remaining a monarchy that is something different. They have zero say in who the monarch is. It is set by centuries of British law.

They don't lurk about in dark passageways and pikestaff their kings in the 21 C. I don't think.

William could well be in his 50s before he is king, but it all depends on the longevity of his grandmother (QEII) and then, in turn, his father (Charles).

There is a line of succession that must be upheld. Short of armed revolution and a French Revolution type scenario, it must be followed. And for starters, as said, Queen Elizabeth II made a solemn vow. She will never revoke it.

Of course, Charles couldn't marry a divorced woman back then. Now look at his son who did it and the world still turns.

Too bad when propriety trumps common sense and good reason.

As with many undesirable situations, though, some good resulted. They got two seemingly very good men out of it (Charles' and Diana's). Both have done a lot for charity and hopefully have many more good years left. Their work will last a long while and helps many, despite whatever else anybody wants to say in criticism of them. If we don't like the system, OK. But in some ways they are unwitting parts of it too as how can you help whose family you're born into? (Despite some Mormon teaching to the contrary, if what the mishies told me is true, that you get the family you asked for).

I don't see how it's possible to know any of it for sure. We can only know what we read (and should be careful of the sources). Both Charles and Diana were unhappy, eventually at least. They both entered into the marriage for whatever reasons that we may never know for sure. In ways we can barely comprehend a few decades later, they were stuck in the system too. I know we can say they had a choice. Charles, as heir to the British throne, not so much. Diana - I don't know.

I read that Charles and Camilla loved each other prior to his marriage to Diana. He also had a lot of other girlfriends in his day. I'd say he was the one who had the experience, definitely not Diana. Unfortunately and bizarrely to our minds today, the whole world had to know that Diana had had a medical exam to ensure she was a virgin. {{{shriek}}}.

It appears she did have mental health issues. At that point (or any really) I wouldn't judge her motives or behaviour. Two people stuck, for whatever reasons. Fortunately, as said, things have progressed since then. Whatever was up with Diana and her marriage, between them she and Charles managed to end up with two accomplished sons.

I agree that Harry is sexy too. Sorry, had to say. But really I admire him for his hands-on good works. :)

End of Off Topic rambling. So sorry. But I did mention Mormonism in there somewhere.

She wasnt divorced at the.point he was dating her.

She was married, I believe (maybe separated but still legally married). I meant that she would have had to get divorced to marry him and even in the '80s (not ancient times) that would not have been allowed.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-diana-tapes-dianas-heartbreaking-recordings-on-camilla-and-bulimia

Part of the transcripts of the audio that Diana sent to Andrew Morton for the book

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Di was Charles better half, and always will be.
> Her children seemed to have inherited some of her
> good sense and temperament.


I think Diana and Charles brought the worst out of each other. A bad marriage from the get go and not well suited to each other.

Charles married Di under false pretenses. They were not suited to each other. I still believe she was the better of the two. She had a better heart, which her boys seem to have inherited.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charles married Di under false pretenses. They
> were not suited to each other. I still believe she
> was the better of the two. She had a better heart,
> which her boys seem to have inherited.


That doesn't make her Charles better half, though. It wasnt a compatible marriage, and of course she was too young to see that (19). Ad Charles was doing fulfilling his "royal responsibility" by marrying a virgin.

Thank goodness the royal family has gotten past all of that and William and Harry didn't have the kind of pressure that Charles did

Diana married beneath her IMO. Except she was blinded by love.

Charles deceived her. That in itself speaks poorly for him. Diana was too honest (and innocent,) to believe she'd been duped by her prince charming, who turned out to be a toad in disguise.

A lot of people who knew Diana felt she was.in love with being Princess of Wales more than in love with Charles. They barely knew each other, had nothing in common and Diana had many emotional issues which she brought into the marriage. Both played a part in the marriage issues.

This!

Okay so they were both more in love with themselves than they were each other.

Diana did spend money lavishly. But she was encouraged to. She loved to shop and wear designer clothing. What female royal hasn't except for maybe Princess Anne?

Charles was a scoundrel through and through. Still is. Diana should've known what she was getting into but she was so very young and naive. She lived the fairy tale until it turned into her worst nightmare. So much for the Cinderella Complex!

>>And he served in Afghanistan, something prior royals were want to do was actual military time in conflict zones.

Prince Andrew served as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War and saw plenty of action. They are probably reluctant to put the direct heir to the throne in any real danger, but the "spares" have served honorably in combat.

I agree with Knotty that Charles should have married Camilla from the get-go. They were always very well suited to one another. Unfortunately, she just got tired of waiting for him.

"Some very fancy, very very rich people got married in England, I guess. I'm told there were a great number of hats." -- ShowerCap



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2018 12:50AM by Dave the Atheist.

"After working with the royal household for ten years, Paul Burrell knows more than most how the senior members of the family operate.

And in an exclusive interview with Now To Love, the former royal butler has sensationally claimed Prince Charles will never be King.

Plus he opens up on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's family plans, the Royal Wedding and what Prince William and Duchess Catherine will call their third child...

Why Prince Charles will never be King
The wheels are already in motion with Her Majesty handing over several important roles to her first-born son, Prince Charles to prepare him for his future role as King.

But Paul believes the monarchy is set to get a major shake-up when The Queen passes away.

"It's a very controversial prediction but we will never see King Charles and Queen Camilla sat on the throne of England. Watch that space," the 59-year-old tells us from the South African jungle, following a three-week stint on I'm A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!

Paul continues: "Why? Because when The Queen dies and she'll be a hundred and something, she will never abdicate. When she dies, I think Charles will do the right thing and say, 'I'm far too old for this responsibility.'"

"And wouldn't the world and the Commonwealth much prefer a younger King and Queen – the beautiful Catherine and William? I think that is the way forward for the Royal Family."

While the palace would never comment on a possible abdication from Prince Charles, Paul also speculates that while Prince William and Duchess Catherine will be fast-tracked to the top job, Prince Harry is becoming just as influential as his late mother, Princess Diana."

https://www.nowtolove.com.au/royals/british-royal-family/paul-burrell-says-prince-charles-will-never-be-king-45534