Is Meghan Markle the most beautiful royal ever?

First topic message reminder :

She is lovely ,imo more beautiful than Kate, who is attractive rather than beautiful, and probably her facial features are more aligned than Princess Diana's.....but is she the most beautiful Royal ever?


"Meghan Markle is more beautiful than Kate Middleton, according to a scientific study of Britain's A-list princesses.
A mathematical method once used by ancient Greeks reveals the 36-year old American has a face even more perfect than Kate’s, and any other British royal of her generation.
Prince Harry's fiance was found to be 87.4 per cent accurate to the Golden Ratio of Beauty Phi.
Her eyes, eyebrows, nose, lips, chin, jaw and facial shape were measured and came closest to the Greeks' idea of physical "perfection."



https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/927912/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-new-latest-most-beautiful

Tommy Monk wrote:

We are not all related to the Queen... but strangely, Diana, Kate and Meghan are... as well as all being related to numerous others in positions of power...


Funny that...

well blame the English in 1700's that DIDN'T fix it with Guillotines

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:


I'm sure there's no rule that says royalty has to be white. That sounded really racist of you.

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

What's the problem in stating what colour someone is, no one, except the rich and deluded can do much about it, you can tan yourself or bleach yourself but its only yourself you are kidding. Everyone should be happy whatever colour their circumstances and nature has given them.
As for Meghan many people have no particular interest in her, others can't get enough of her, some people are just happy that two people have found happiness with each other, some will think she's beautiful some won't. There are people who will think she's not right for the royal family in any or all ways, they are entitled to voice their opinions, even if they are ignorant ones. Personally I hope they'll be happy and can only think having a number of young royal couples is a good thing if only for the charity work, however I can't see the point of comparing them for looks or anything else,
why the papers have to build up on the existing public hysteria for royals and celebs is beyonf me,
other countries don't seem to have this problem, don't the Danish or Scandinavian royals just walk around to the shops, the children go to the local school etc., without being mobbed by the public, yet they too are held in high regard in their countries. Our newspapers make everything seem like a script out of 'Dallas'.

magica wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:


I'm sure there's no rule that says royalty has to be white. That sounded really racist of you.

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

Don't worry about it, Mags. Personally I don't think you meant any harm - it's just that your wording looked a bit clumsy"... I don't think she's right for royally she's of mixed race ..."

You are free to comment, Mags - but then other members are free to comment on your comment.
Peace! x

What's the obsession with how the Royals look?

HoratioTarr wrote:What's the obsession with how the Royals look?

Because we live in a shallow society obsessed with good looks.
Encouraged by the press, and even more the internet.. if a person doesn't have the required amount of physical beauty they are either airbrushed to perfection, ignored, or made to feel inadequate.

Do you really think Diana, Kate, Meghan ,Angelina, Beyoncé (whoever else is constantly on the cover of popular magazines and papers) would be so interesting to the the general public if they looked like the back of a bus?

Vintage wrote:What's the problem in stating what colour someone is, no one, except the rich and deluded can do much about it, you can tan yourself or bleach yourself but its only yourself you are kidding. Everyone should be happy whatever colour their circumstances and nature has given them.
As for Meghan many people have no particular interest in her, others can't get enough of her, some people are just happy that two people have found happiness with each other, some will think she's beautiful some won't. There are people who will think she's not right for the royal family   in any or all ways, they are entitled to voice their opinions, even if they are ignorant ones. Personally I hope they'll be happy and can only think having a number of young royal couples is a good thing if only for the charity work, however I can't see the point of comparing them for looks or anything else,
why the papers have to build up on the existing public hysteria for royals and celebs is beyonf me,
other countries don't seem to have this problem, don't the Danish or Scandinavian royals just walk around to the shops, the children go to the local school etc., without being mobbed by the public, yet they too are held in high regard in their countries. Our newspapers make everything seem like a script out of 'Dallas'.

Nice post.

magica wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:


I'm sure there's no rule that says royalty has to be white. That sounded really racist of you.

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

Free speech is accepted on here, but so is challenging opinions, which makes it a lot more interesting than many forums we have been on in the past Mags.

Wallis Simpson was considered unsuitable to marry into the royal family because she was a divorcee....and even worse American.
There has always been talk that Diana was murdered because she was considering marriage to a Muslim, and that's not so long ago.
Prince Charles couldn't marry the woman he loved first time round....Princess Margaret couldn't marry the man she wanted to, happily even the royal family have learned from their mistakes and now accept that even royals should be free to pick their own future spouses.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

Free speech is accepted on here, but so is challenging opinions, which makes it a lot more interesting than many forums we have been on in the past Mags.

Wallis Simpson was considered unsuitable to marry into the royal family because she was a divorcee....and even worse American.
There has always been talk that Diana was murdered because she was considering marriage to a Muslim, and that's not so long ago.
Prince Charles couldn't marry the woman he loved first time round....Princess Margaret couldn't marry the man she wanted to, happily even the royal family have learned from their mistakes and now accept that even royals should be free to pick their own future spouses.

Well isnt she, also Catholic too.

I think when Harry stomped his feet and said he was coming out of the royal family could've been because he was told he couldn't marry Meghan, so queen gave in, got his own way.

How I would wish the royals apart from our queen, and those in direst line, pissed off and paid for themselves here or in another country.

Now everyone will be bowing scraping to Megham, as they do Sophie and others.

This is all because I mentioned her being mixed race, which funnily enough the papers all skirt round now, bah!

Gave you a green Vin, thankyou.

Id I cant mention someones colour without the board owner calling me racist then I shan't bother here anymore..

I think Fergie and Sophie are as well. Meanwhile Jack ? is connected by marriage through Sarah Duchess of York, who is related to the Royal family etc

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:What's the obsession with how the Royals look?

Because we live in a shallow society obsessed with good looks.
Encouraged by the press, and even more the internet.. if a person doesn't have the required amount of physical beauty they are either airbrushed to perfection, ignored, or made to feel inadequate.

Do you really think Diana, Kate, Meghan ,Angelina, Beyoncé (whoever else is constantly on the cover of popular magazines and papers) would be so interesting to the the general public if  they looked like the back of a bus?

well, tbh, they do seem to be, at least to the papers.

i've seen many a 'celebrity' pictured looking haggard, on route to the shops or whatever, be they male or female, if they are famous the papers will publish their pics with what seems like the utmost glee



it seems a shame that well known people are not comfortable leaving the house looking less than perfect in case they get snapped by the pap

what price fame eh?

magica wrote:

Kate has a natural beauty, Merkel doesnt

hahahaha

certainly, she does not - God help Harry (and the rest of us) if he was marrying her

Sour Frau Merkel has the look of a concentration camp guard. The face of a bulldog licking piss off a thistle springs to mind

Markle, however does have a certain sparkle

Each to their own I guess on looks, but what does it matter what people think how good looking someone is?

All that matters is they both are very much attracted to each other.

Its irrelevant what others think

Are we talking about "royals" or people married/engaged to "royals". If it's the latter, she probably is. Diana was charismatic and elegant, and Kate is OK, but not really beautiful.

If we're talking about "royals", Lady Helen Windsor is quite a beauty.

I thought men were supposed to be fixated on looks????

Seems to me more so, that women are....

Why is that?

Envy?

Jealousy?

When the views are negative?

Serious questions and find this more interesting, than the actual bitching posted about these Royal or potential Royal women.

Do any of those who posted negative views consider how they would view people looking at them the same way. Based on their husbands/partners choices to be with them?

How would they view anyone speaking this way of their own union with their partners?

I will add to this. Do you hear the men being snarky about how Harry or William look and whether they are good looking enough or right for either Kate and Merkal?

I mean seriously ladies, take a look at what you cattle on about.

Its irrelevant who is the most beautiful Royal, as they will all each be the most beautiful, to those who both loved each other. Even when their are very old and their looks have gone. Showing love is more than looks.

Didge wrote:I thought men were supposed to be fixated on looks????

Seems to me more so, that women are....

Why is that?

Envy?

Jealousy?

When the views are negative?

Serious questions and find this more interesting, than the actual bitching posted about these Royal or potential Royal women.

Do any of those who posted negative views consider how they would view people looking at them the same way. Based on their husbands/partners choices to be with them?

How would they view anyone speaking this way of their own union with their partners?

Women spend far more time worrying about what other women think of their looks, while they are looking at other women and analyzing how they look.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:I thought men were supposed to be fixated on looks????

Seems to me more so, that women are....

Why is that?

Envy?

Jealousy?

When the views are negative?

Serious questions and find this more interesting, than the actual bitching posted about these Royal or potential Royal women.

Do any of those who posted negative views consider how they would view people looking at them the same way. Based on their husbands/partners choices to be with them?

How would they view anyone speaking this way of their own union with their partners?

Women spend far more time worrying about what other women think of their looks, while they are looking at other women and analyzing how they look.  

100% agree and its so dumb on every level

It shows massive insecurities.

It shows they have either been institutinalized in how to think and behave or its genetic.

The worst thing is when they say someone looks good in something but actually behind their back think it looks shit. They then bitch about this, not to them, but to the men or their mates. Its like, they are finding reasons to bitch about something. When they should have been honest to that person and say that its not their cup of tea. 

I mean I was led to believe women love honesty. 

Really?

Not to their faces of course, but behind their backs, as seen here, where that person cannot respond to such views

Didge wrote:I will add to this. Do you hear the men being snarky about how Harry or William look and whether they are good looking enough or right for either Kate and Merkal?

I mean seriously ladies, take a look at what you cattle on about.

Its irrelevant who is the most beautiful Royal, as they will all each be the most beautiful, to those who both loved each other. Even when their are very old and their looks have gone. Showing love is more than looks.

It was an article splashed over the papers, this is a forum made up of news serious and trivial...and lots of people have a viewpoint.

Men view looks in a different way...is that person good looking enough to be chatted up...is she too good looking and out of my league, when men comment on a womans looks its usually her boobs or bum they are waxing lyrical or being mean about.

At least we women are more detached in our shallowness.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:I will add to this. Do you hear the men being snarky about how Harry or William look and whether they are good looking enough or right for either Kate and Merkal?

I mean seriously ladies, take a look at what you cattle on about.

Its irrelevant who is the most beautiful Royal, as they will all each be the most beautiful, to those who both loved each other. Even when their are very old and their looks have gone. Showing love is more than looks.

It was an article splashed over the papers, this is a forum made up of news serious and trivial...and lots of people have a viewpoint.

Men view looks in a different way...is that person good looking enough to be chatted up...is she too good looking and out of my league, when men comment on a womans looks its usually her boobs or bum they are waxing lyrical or being mean about.

At least we women are more detached in our shallowness.  

But what does it matter to you or anyone else?

Imagine before your wedding, people were taking about you and your husband based on your looks?

How would you seriously feel and that the argument put fourth was based on Englishmen picking better English women, say than you?

What would you think if this was being said behind your back?

So when it comes to being shallow, women, hold the crown on this. Men may be complete dicks around women at times, espcially when they find dutch courage and are drunk. But women are appalling in regards to how they see each other.

P.S.  Come on Sly, the thread was posted not maliciously, but was posted to generate views on looks comparing Royals and it as seen degenerates into complete bitching.

I agree your intentions were meant as good, but as seen, what always happens. Women knowing that they can say as they please, knowing those people will not read. It instills like men with an erection when turned on. Women's claws automatically extend and the bitching begins.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Women spend far more time worrying about what other women think of their looks, while they are looking at other women and analyzing how they look.  

100% agree and its so dumb on every level

It shows massive insecurities.

It shows they have either been institutinalized in how to think and behave or its genetic.

The worst thing is when they say someone looks good in something but actually behind their back think it looks shit. They then bitch about this, not to them, but to the men or their mates. Its like, they are finding reasons to bitch about something. When they should have been honest to that person and say that its not their cup of tea. 

I mean I was led to believe women love honesty. 

Really?

Not to their faces of course, but behind their backs, as seen here, where that person cannot respond to such views

When someone is in the public eye they do get judged a lot on their looks, women more than men, it might not be fair and it certainly is shallow, but that's the way it is in this country.

Women can be bitchy, most ime are not...but that doesn't mean they have to pretend to love every other woman they clap eyes on.
You should blame the press, blame the internet, and blame the way women are hired and fired by MEN in many industries, not because they cant do the job but because they are not pretty enough or past their sell by date.

Didge wrote:P.S.  Come on Sly, the thread was posted not maliciously, but was posted to generate views on looks comparing Royals and it as seen degenerates into complete bitching.

I agree your intentions were meant as good, but as seen, what always happens. Women knowing that they can say as they please, knowing those people will not read. It instills like men with an erection when turned on. Women's claws automatically extend and the bitching begins.

Cant you spell my THREE letter name in the right order Didge, or are you still being childish?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


100% agree and its so dumb on every level

It shows massive insecurities.

It shows they have either been institutinalized in how to think and behave or its genetic.

The worst thing is when they say someone looks good in something but actually behind their back think it looks shit. They then bitch about this, not to them, but to the men or their mates. Its like, they are finding reasons to bitch about something. When they should have been honest to that person and say that its not their cup of tea. 

I mean I was led to believe women love honesty. 

Really?

Not to their faces of course, but behind their backs, as seen here, where that person cannot respond to such views

When someone is in the public eye they do get judged a lot on their looks, women more than men, it might not be fair and it certainly is shallow, but that's the way it is in this country.

Women can be bitchy, most ime are not...but that doesn't mean they have to pretend to love every other woman they clap eyes on.
You should blame the press, blame the internet, and blame the way women are hired and fired by MEN in many industries, not because they cant do the job but because they are not pretty enough or past their sell by date.

So that is the way it is?

This is how women combat their insecurities then?

Attacking people in the limelight on their looks?

Even though we all lose our looks through growing old.

It shows most women are bitchy and as seen, dont even realise that they are.

As why even compare looks between two Royals, on something that is uniquely individual to everyone based on looks and attraction.

Nobody, but nobody can control who they are attracted to.

They can however control acting on who they are attractive to. So the views of women based on looks, when this is based on what an individual perceives as beautiful, is as about as dumb as it gets.

I mean are you going to tell a celebrity with disabilities they are not attractive and that the person they are marrying who has no disabilities could do much better?

The simple answer is no and this proves how shallow some women are. As beauty is seriously in the eye of the beholder and that its way more than looks.

Hence why even argue on looks between Royals. Its simple more about what person you like, not how they even look.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:P.S.  Come on Sly, the thread was posted not maliciously, but was posted to generate views on looks comparing Royals and it as seen degenerates into complete bitching.

I agree your intentions were meant as good, but as seen, what always happens. Women knowing that they can say as they please, knowing those people will not read. It instills like men with an erection when turned on. Women's claws automatically extend and the bitching begins.

Cant you spell my THREE letter name in the right order Didge, or are you still being childish?

That was a Typo and it was

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:P.S.  Come on Sly, the thread was posted not maliciously, but was posted to generate views on looks comparing Royals and it as seen degenerates into complete bitching.

I agree your intentions were meant as good, but as seen, what always happens. Women knowing that they can say as they please, knowing those people will not read. It instills like men with an erection when turned on. Women's claws automatically extend and the bitching begins.

Cant you spell my THREE letter name in the right order Didge, or are you still being childish?

from reading his post, I don't think he did that intentionally

Didge wrote:P.S.  Come on Sly, the thread was posted not maliciously, but was posted to generate views on looks comparing Royals and it as seen degenerates into complete bitching.

I agree your intentions were meant as good, but as seen, what always happens. Women knowing that they can say as they please, knowing those people will not read. It instills like men with an erection when turned on. Women's claws automatically extend and the bitching begins.

The article was based on the age old Greek method of how facial features should be aligned in order to create perfection.
Meghans facial features are considered to be (by the mathematical method the ancient Greeks used) nearer to perfection than any other Royal bride.


I should imagine if she ever did read here, she would be pleased because the overwhelming comments have been nice.
The odd few that didn't see her as the most beautiful, are surely entitled to say so without being accused of being bitchy or jealous.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Cant you spell my THREE letter name in the right order Didge, or are you still being childish?

That was a Typo and it was

OK...I believe you, you usually do call me SLY on purpose after we have a row though.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

When someone is in the public eye they do get judged a lot on their looks, women more than men, it might not be fair and it certainly is shallow, but that's the way it is in this country.

Women can be bitchy, most ime are not...but that doesn't mean they have to pretend to love every other woman they clap eyes on.
You should blame the press, blame the internet, and blame the way women are hired and fired by MEN in many industries, not because they cant do the job but because they are not pretty enough or past their sell by date.

So that is the way it is?

This is how women combat their insecurities then?

Attacking people in the limelight on their looks?

Even though we all lose our looks through growing old.

It shows most women are bitchy and as seen, dont even realise that they are.

As why even compare looks between two Royals, on something that is uniquely individual to everyone based on looks and attraction.

Nobody, but nobody can control who they are attracted to.

They can however control acting on who they are attractive to. So the views of women based on looks, when this is based on what an individual perceives as beautiful, is as about as dumb as it gets.

I mean are you going to tell a celebrity with disabilities they are not attractive and that the person they are marrying who has no disabilities could do much better?

The simple answer is no and this proves how shallow some women are. As beauty is seriously in the eye of the beholder and that its way more than looks.

Hence why even argue on looks between Royals. Its simple more about what person you like, not how they even look.

but didge it's the media that hype all this up and put out stories such as this. Yes it's all a load of bollox in the great scheme of things but a lot of people follow the royals and the media know this so they will come up with anything. ''Is megan's dress prettier than kate's?'' type of thing will go on and on i expect

and this is nothing about ''combating insecurities''. It's just responding to the article and giving an opinion

isn't that why we're here?

We had all this at Kate's wedding where his sister, Pippa, stole the show with her bum.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:P.S.  Come on Sly, the thread was posted not maliciously, but was posted to generate views on looks comparing Royals and it as seen degenerates into complete bitching.

I agree your intentions were meant as good, but as seen, what always happens. Women knowing that they can say as they please, knowing those people will not read. It instills like men with an erection when turned on. Women's claws automatically extend and the bitching begins.

The article was based on the age old Greek method of how facial features should be aligned in order to create perfection.
Meghans facial features are considered to be (by the mathematical  method the ancient Greeks used) nearer  to perfection than any other Royal bride.


I should imagine if she ever did read here, she would be pleased because the overwhelming comments have been nice.
The odd few that didn't see her as the most beautiful, are surely entitled to say so without being accused of being bitchy or jealous.

Well I think that is a load of mumbo jumbo and clearly people spend too much time on things that do not matter. 

The point is you are comparing two women on looks, when to each of their partners, they would be the most beautiful to them. So what does it matter to you or anyone else?

Is that what is really important their looks here?

Or who they are or act as people?

Its always okay to be critical of people based on their beliefs, but going off their looks? Can as seen, steer women more so on disliking that person, more than who they actually are.

To me both these women, seem lovely people, so what does their looks have to do with anything?

Do you know what I think this stems from?

All the fairy Princess stories girls are fed growing up with. How they are meant to look at an elite of women a certain way and how the reality of how women can be bitchy. Enables their darker side

If their looks don't matter, how come we never see them in scruffy old clothes with their hair all greasy, and no make up?

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


So that is the way it is?

This is how women combat their insecurities then?

Attacking people in the limelight on their looks?

Even though we all lose our looks through growing old.

It shows most women are bitchy and as seen, dont even realise that they are.

As why even compare looks between two Royals, on something that is uniquely individual to everyone based on looks and attraction.

Nobody, but nobody can control who they are attracted to.

They can however control acting on who they are attractive to. So the views of women based on looks, when this is based on what an individual perceives as beautiful, is as about as dumb as it gets.

I mean are you going to tell a celebrity with disabilities they are not attractive and that the person they are marrying who has no disabilities could do much better?

The simple answer is no and this proves how shallow some women are. As beauty is seriously in the eye of the beholder and that its way more than looks.

Hence why even argue on looks between Royals. Its simple more about what person you like, not how they even look.

but didge it's the media that hype all this up and put out stories such as this.  Yes it's all a load of bollox in the great scheme of things but a lot of people follow the royals and the media know this so they will come up with anything.  ''Is megan's dress prettier than kate's?'' type of thing will go on and on i expect

and this is nothing about ''combating insecurities''.  It's just responding to the article and giving an opinion

isn't that why we're here?

But it is insecurities Gelico, as you are attacking someone based on their looks and based on this, how you then perceive them.

Its not based on anything she has done or believes in.

So you want to give an opinion.

Okay, what does it matter who is the best looking Royal?

See how now many women have become defensive when call to task on this?

Sorry Gelico, but to me, they are both nice people based on what I have read about them.

I do not know them and cannot say anymore, so its hard for me to judge them

So why are you and others judging them both on looks?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


That was a Typo and it was

OK...I believe you, you usually do call me SLY on purpose after we have a row though.

Is this a row?

Wow

Have you seen me be nasty?

What bitching? Have I missed something? I didn't read anyone attacking anyone on their looks, quite the opposite.

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

Cant you spell my THREE letter name in the right order Didge, or are you still being childish?

from reading his post, I don't think he did that intentionally

Thank you and I did not intend to post it that way

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:


but didge it's the media that hype all this up and put out stories such as this.  Yes it's all a load of bollox in the great scheme of things but a lot of people follow the royals and the media know this so they will come up with anything.  ''Is megan's dress prettier than kate's?'' type of thing will go on and on i expect

and this is nothing about ''combating insecurities''.  It's just responding to the article and giving an opinion

isn't that why we're here?

But it is insecurities Gelico, as you are attacking someone based on their looks and based on this, how you then perceive them.

Its not based on anything she has done or believes in.

So you want to give an opinion.

Okay, what does it matter who is the best looking Royal?

See how now many women have become defensive when call to task on this?

Sorry Gelico, but to me, they are both nice people based on what I have read about them.

I do not know them and cannot say anymore, so its hard for me to judge them

So why are you and others judging them both on looks?

it was the media article which did that didge

we are merely commenting on that

there have been some interesting and funny comments

personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else

like i said, your questions should be asked of the media rather than anyone on here

or perhaps you think this thread should never have been put up,,,,

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

OK...I believe you, you usually do call me SLY on purpose after we have a row though.

Is this a row?

Wow

Have you seen me be nasty?

I said AFTER we have had a row....when you hang on to your anger....and yes I have seen you be nasty.

However...we are not rowing now are we?...not yet anyway.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Is this a row?

Wow

Have you seen me be nasty?

I said AFTER we have had a row....when you hang on to your anger....and yes I have seen you be nasty.

However...we are not rowing now are we?...not yet anyway.

We are not rowing Syl  

Its a light hearted thread....no one is saying anything that could be offensive.
People are offering their opinions, the Royal family interest a lot of people....the way the royal women look attract a lot of attention.

So what?

It must be awful having to look nice all the time.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I said AFTER we have had a row....when you hang on to your anger....and yes I have seen you be nasty.

However...we are not rowing now are we?...not yet anyway.

We are not rowing Syl  

It wont last.

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


But it is insecurities Gelico, as you are attacking someone based on their looks and based on this, how you then perceive them.

Its not based on anything she has done or believes in.

So you want to give an opinion.

Okay, what does it matter who is the best looking Royal?

See how now many women have become defensive when call to task on this?

Sorry Gelico, but to me, they are both nice people based on what I have read about them.

I do not know them and cannot say anymore, so its hard for me to judge them

So why are you and others judging them both on looks?

it was the media article which did that didge

we are merely commenting on that

there have been some interesting and funny comments

personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else

like i said, your questions should be asked of the media rather than anyone on here

or perhaps you think this thread should never have been put up,,,,

So your excuse for doing so, is because an article did so?

So you are basically a sheep to what others think Gelico?

Come on Gelico, that is a lame excuse

That has been interesting comments and now many defensive comments, when I hit back at posters on their views and what drives them

Well the media people are not here and thus those joining in this farce will have to tackle my points onto them.

I have no problem with any thread being put up. Can you show where I am against the thread?

Never made any such claim. Never even claimed you could not say as you please.

What it seems, is that you are trying to enter the Cathy Newman school and claim things I have never stated.

I have though rightly taken on yours and others views as poor, insecure, bitchy etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:It must be awful having to look nice all the time.

It must be horrible to have an off day and knowing someone cant wait to take a pic and sell it for thousands.

The paparazzi used to call Diana the C and T words, in the hope she would break down and cry...a photo of her crying or screaming at them would make them a lot of money.

Hopefully those days are gone.

Syl wrote:Its a light hearted thread....no one is saying anything that could be offensive.
People are offering their opinions, the Royal family interest a lot of people....the way the royal women look attract a lot of attention.

So what?

What is lighthearted about comparing looks?

Its elitism, how inequality is born from Syl and like I say based on something superficial and individual. Based on their tastes and attractions.

Its not based on what they actually do or their beliefs.

The whole "royal" family is about elitism anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:The whole "royal" family is about elitism anyway.

Indeed its born of elitism, but an elitism, that brings a economic boost to this nation.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Its a light hearted thread....no one is saying anything that could be offensive.
People are offering their opinions, the Royal family interest a lot of people....the way the royal women look attract a lot of attention.

So what?

What is lighthearted about comparing looks?

Its elitism, how inequality is born from Syl and like I say based on something superficial and individual. Based on their tastes and attractions.

Its not based on what they actually do or their beliefs.

No its not, that's why I said it was shallow.

Didge, you may not know this but women, even ordinary women like me and others on here, are judged on our looks from the day we are born.
Pretty baby, beautiful child, she is the clever one (translate as her lack of beauty is compensated by her brains) you look nice in that, that hairstyle suits you, that dress looks nice, your arse looks big, we all know that rejection/acception is often based on looks, weight, height, size of boobs, age, marital status, number of children, and so it goes on, from birth till death.
This happens in the work place and throughout society.

Meghan and Kate wil be very used to being judged on their looks. Its the way of the world.