The Royal Family | Imamother

amother

Amaryllis

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 10:37 am

amother [ Pansy ] wrote:

I hugged your post not because of any feelings. I hugged it because the posts contains a lot of assumptions on a person you really have little insight to. For example, Catherine doesn't seem like she was just after marrying a heir. If anything, that was Meghan.

People are indeed complex. You applied that complexity to other characters, but made Catherine out to be very simple minded. So your post sounded like an underhanded attack rather than an outside unbiased viewpoint.

Hence, the hug.

I'm not the person who wrote that post.

I just think it's funny that people care enough about the royal family to hug a post which could be had misconceptions.

amother

Pansy

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 10:53 am

sequoia wrote:

Yes, Kate went to St Andrews with the express desire of marrying Will. Moved in with him, did a lingerie dance on tables. These are facts, not assumptions. There’s photos.

Did she do that because she really liked him, or did it because she wanted to marry into the RF?

Can anyone truly answer that other than the involved parties? Assuming that she was just after to marrying into the RF seems wrong. She has behaved beautifully in her role, and has grown to be a wonderful partner in the relationship. Compare that to Meghan and Harry. If anyone deserves to be discredited in this fashion, it's Meghan.

amother

Charcoal

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 10:56 am

sequoia wrote:

Yes, Kate went to St Andrews with the express desire of marrying Will. Moved in with him, did a lingerie dance on tables. These are facts, not assumptions. There’s photos.

The bolded are the facts.

She moved in after they were in a relationship, like most people do.

If she went to St Andrews with the agenda to marry William is debatable.

amother

Floralwhite

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 1:21 pm

amother [ Canary ] wrote:

I enjoy analyzing people’s behavior and why they do things. The royal family is interesting because they have to maintain public personas that are different from their real selves, which we all do, but their situation is more extreme and unrelenting. They don’t seem any more dysfunctional than many regular families, but they have the added burden of being in the public eye and being responsible for the continuation of a monarchy that has mixed support from the people, as well as the added complexity of having tons of money and privilege while also having so many limitations in their freedom.

I consider Meghan and Harry rather predictable and not worth focusing on. They will drift away and be irrelevant (while still trying to milk their story for $$). I find the positive pr around William and Catherine much more interesting. They’re both complex characters. He seems to be a difficult person to live with, very uptight and wanting things his way. The press has recently been turning Catherine into an angel. She wasn’t always spun that way. As the time for Charles to become king draws closer, they’re doing everything to make Catherine popular. I think because there’s a strong fear that Charles/Camilla will mark the end of the monarchy since they’re so unpopular. I find it interesting that people on imamother “adore” Catherine. There are a lot of people behind the scenes polishing that image, I find it interesting that people swallow it. Let’s be real, she went to St. Andrew’s to meet him (took a gap year so they’d start at the same time), and planned her whole life around marrying the heir. Back when she was Waity Katie people didn’t admire a young woman spending the bulk of her 20s doing nothing much careerwise or otherwise, just waiting for the ring. I always wonder why the idea of marrying William was so appealing? What truly deeply motivates Catherine?

Gap year is a pretty common thing to do in England. Don't know if you need to read into it.

amother

Floralwhite

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 1:28 pm

Young men and women will do a lot to get with their crush (assuming that is why she attended that particular uni). As long as they don't "crush" anyone else in the process, as long as their intentions are for love and not for pain and hurt.
Looking back, if the William and Kate are happy, if they built a wholesome unit and family life, why be cruel about what it took to get there? Did they hurt anyone in the process?

eta: I'm not condoning modeling in lingerie (which might not be so weird in that world), but showing interest in a guy, trying to be in the right place at the right time... what is the problem with that?

amother

Navy

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 3:15 pm

sequoia wrote:

Yes, Kate went to St Andrews with the express desire of marrying Will. Moved in with him, did a lingerie dance on tables. These are facts, not assumptions. There’s photos.

No, they are not quite facts. They are twisted facts. When did Kate express that she went to St. Andrews because she wanted to marry William? (She may well have done so, but there is no way that you know for a fact it was her express desire.) Furthermore, she did not do a lingerie dance on the tables. That is also not a fact. Check it out.

I hold no brief for the Cambridges, but if you're calling something a fact you should be accurate.

amother

Navy

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 3:24 pm

amother [ Charcoal ] wrote:

No way. Camilla is not liked because she interfered in someone's marriage. She kept up her relationship with Charles even though he was already married which broke Diana. It is Charles responsibility too but we won't forget her part either.

However sweet and nice they seem to be nowadays, they were both horrid to Diana.

Diana was no angel herself, although she may have looked like one. She was an extremely troubled person, grew up in a dysfunctional family, was abandoned by her mother, suffered from a psychiatric condition and Charles was completely unequipped to handle her and her problems. Both were unfaithful to each other. Diana was very press savvy and was able to build herself a reputation as the innocent girl who was cruelly treated by her husband and his family, but that is not the whole story by a long shot.

The sad thing is that if Charles had been allowed to marry the woman he loved none of the Diana tragedy would have happened. We would have had a Prince of Wales with his homely wife and two or three homely, uninteresting children. No glamorous William and Kate. And no troubled Harry with his very problematic Meghan.

amother

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 3:54 pm

amother [ Navy ] wrote:

Diana only had an affair after her husband did and after she realized he never loved her. Yes she was good at PR and it’s a good thing she was- she didn’t deserve for her reputation to be dragged in the mud or to lose her children which would have happened if she wasn’t so savvy.

Very interestingly her bulimia stopped after her divorce, once she was happier …

amother

Latte

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 5:18 pm

amother [ Charcoal ] wrote:

Actually, they are pretty straight forward and predictable. Williams personality is an ESFJ, he values tradition and therefore he's so suitable for this role as heir to the thrown. Kate is also pretty predictable.

They are actually quite similar to each other besides for the fact that he is an extrovert and she an introvert. But it does make sense for him to be a little stronger, he is a man after all.

What?

Raisin

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 6:00 pm

amother [ Navy ] wrote:

I agree with you, except that Camilla's children are not bad looking at all. Probably better looking or similar to William and Harry. And what exactly makes Harry and William so interesting? LOL

Bear in mind Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla because he had already slept with her. (And I think she had had other boyfriends too) 30 years later William was allowed to marry his girlfriend. Standards have changed. Poor Charles was unlucky to be at that point in time where things had changed in that it was normal for his potential girlfriends to be sleeping with men, but not enough to allow him to marry such a woman.

amother

Jasmine

Sun, Jun 13 2021, 8:11 pm

Raisin wrote:

I agree with you, except that Camilla's children are not bad looking at all. Probably better looking or similar to William and Harry. And what exactly makes Harry and William so interesting? LOL

Charles still behaved inhumanely to Diana, as did the rest of the royal family.

amother

Navy

Mon, Jun 14 2021, 8:46 am

Raisin wrote:

I agree with you, except that Camilla's children are not bad looking at all.

Her first husband must have been good-looking because I can't imagine how a child of Charles and Camilla could be anything but homely. Wink

Quote:

Probably better looking or similar to William and Harry. And what exactly makes Harry and William so interesting? LOL

William was supposed to be quite the poster boy and swooningly handsome, wasn't he? Harry looks a lot like his father, so nuff said.

William is takeh pretty boring but Harry has always attracted a lot of press attention, hasn't he? And more so now with his troublemaker wife.