Prince William & Kate Middleton Are Finally Engaged

[Vanessa]

[quote=""Michy""]To me, his nose and his mouth are both Diana's. But there's something about him that's looking more and more like Charles. I think it's his hair and the ever-increasing forehead. [/quote]

I think it's the lack of hair which makes him more of a Windsor than a Spencer! I think he looks a little like Andrew.

As for the Duchess of Windsor, I should've added she also wasn't an aristocrat/from the right family. Things have changed there again, as Kate isn't from the aristocracy.

I think Kate is attractive and there was nothing wrong with her appearance the other day. And at the end of the day, if Will feels that she's the right woman for him, then that's all there is to it!

[sweetpotatoboy]

[quote=""SonjaMarie""]Re: William - yeah he used to be a lot hotter and now he's losing his hair (poor guy), and not as hot, bummer! I thought he escaped the curse of the Windsors' looks cause of his mother, guess not.[/quote]

Well, yes, I think it's true that William hasn't grown up quite as handsome as he promised to be younger, but he's still nice enough and has a good figure from his active lifestyle.
What I think is a shame is quite how old-fashioned he dresses. He's in his twenties, but the cut and style of his suits and ties and his casual clothes too are hardly 21st century. His haircut too. I'm not suggesting he should go ultra-trendy, but he shouldn't be wearing suits a 50-year-old would wear. With his cachet and build, he could be showing off a more modern British style that a typical 20-something would wear but still look smart and respectable.
But then, that whole 'set' tend to dress that old-fashioned way.

[Mythica]

[quote=""Michy""]
I think Kate is cute. Not beautiful, but very cute. [/quote]

Really? I think she's beautiful. She's certainly not glamorous or sultry but I think she's beautiful in a natural, girl-next-door type way, which I think is what attracted William to her.

[LoveHistory]

I was going to sit out the major discussion on this, but I've changed my mind. I'm an American and a member of the under 30 set, so you may be surprised by some of my views.

About Charles/Diana/Camilla. They all three got a raw deal. There's a tendency, on this side of the pond at least, to afford Diana almost saintly status, which I find unreasonable. She was a lovely, kind-hearted basketcase. That started in childhood, and it's possible that if she'd lived a somewhat normal life outside the spotlight she would have been fine. If Charles and Camilla had been allowed to marry none of that whole mess would have happened. True, C&C behaved badly, but then so did Diana at times. No saints, all victims in a sense.

As to matters of beauty and fashion: classics never go out of style, and that includes modest blue dresses and well-cut suits (though William's suits are not always well-cut); Kate is beautiful, as Mythica stated, in a girl next door sort of way. And Diana was not all that beautiful.

Throw tomatoes at me if you wish.

[Vanessa]

Quite agree with you actually!

[Michy]

[quote=""Mythica""]Really? I think she's beautiful. She's certainly not glamorous or sultry but I think she's beautiful in a natural, girl-next-door type way, which I think is what attracted William to her.[/quote]

To me, her face has a "pixie-ish" quality that makes her very cute but not beautiful.

[quote=""LoveHistory""] And Diana was not all that beautiful.

Throw tomatoes at me if you wish.[/quote]
No tomatoes here -- I agree with your analysis of Charles/Camilla/Diana. And I also agree about Diana's looks. She was attractive, thanks to wonderful height and an absolutely flawless complexion (which I highly envied back then!). I wouldn't go so far as to say she was an ugly duckling, but all the accoutrements of beauty that became available to her when she married into the royal family -- the clothing designers, the top-notch hair and makeup artists, the jewels -- certainly transformed her. Had she not married into royalty, I highly doubt that she would have ever become so glamorous, but would have been just another average-looking female like her sisters.

So now I am ducking tomatoes, too......

ETA: I think the reason some Americans are so enamored of the British royals is because they appeal to a love of pageantry, etc., but we don't have to pay for it!!! So we get to enjoy it for free.

[Ken]

[quote=""Michy""]

ETA: I think the reason some Americans are so enamored of the British royals is because they appeal to a love of pageantry, etc., but we don't have to pay for it!!! So we get to enjoy it for free. [/quote]

My two pence worth. I think 'beautiful' is too strong a word. She is however, very attractive to men, not least becasue of her elegance. On the subject of the cost: In the first place, it appears that the royals will pay up for the wedding itself, we the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the police security, etc, but can you imagine how much money this wedding will generate? Estimates here through tourism, mementoes, television rights, etc, are upwards of 1 Billion pounds!

On top of that, we are going to get a holiday and the feel good factor will be immense in a time of economic hardship.

[EC2]

[quote=""LoveHistory""]I

About Charles/Diana/Camilla. They all three got a raw deal. There's a tendency, on this side of the pond at least, to afford Diana almost saintly status, which I find unreasonable. She was a lovely, kind-hearted basketcase.

According to my friend who moved in her circles, (daughter of an earl) she was indeed a basket case and had a very different persona off camera. She may have been kind-hearted, lovely and an ambassador for all sorts of things in the spotlight, but at home she bullied the servants, abused them and slapped them around and took out her moods on them. My friend stopped at that, but said there was a lot more she could say, but Diana was dead and she didn't want to stir up more mud from the bottom of the pond, but there was a lot of it.

That started in childhood, and it's possible that if she'd lived a somewhat normal life outside the spotlight she would have been fine. If Charles and Camilla had been allowed to marry none of that whole mess would have happened. True, C&C behaved ba
Tdly, but then so did Diana at times. No saints, all victims in a sense.

[/quote]

Agree with you. You put all that lot in the fishbowl of the tabloids and something is bound to blow. Very sad all round.

[EC2]

[quote=""Ken""]My two pence worth. I think 'beautiful' is too strong a word. She is however, very attractive to men, not least becasue of her elegance. On the subject of the cost: In the first place, it appears that the royals will pay up for the wedding itself, we the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the police security, etc, but can you imagine how much money this wedding will generate? Estimates here through tourism, mementoes, television rights, etc, are upwards of 1 Billion pounds!

On top of that, we are going to get a holiday and the feel good factor will be immense in a time of economic hardship. [/quote]

Yes, I agree Ken, I think there are plenty of positive factors and I also think the public mood is more positive towards the royals who are part of our heritage, than it is towards our MP's who are really seen as having their snouts in the trough.

[Michy]

[quote=""Ken""]My two pence worth. I think 'beautiful' is too strong a word. She is however, very attractive to men, not least becasue of her elegance. [/quote] I assume you're talking about Kate? Oh, yes, I can see how she would most definitely be attractive to men! Like I said before, she's got a body to die for and a cute face to boot. And after all, William apparently did first meet her when she was modeling lingerie at a fashion show! It will be interesting to see if and how she is "transformed" after her marriage............

On the subject of the cost: In the first place, it appears that the royals will pay up for the wedding itself, we the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the police security, etc, but can you imagine how much money this wedding will generate? Estimates here through tourism, mementoes, television rights, etc, are upwards of 1 Billion pounds!

On top of that, we are going to get a holiday and the feel good factor will be immense in a time of economic hardship.

Even though the royals are "paying for the wedding themselves" -- don't their salaries, or allowances, or whatever they get, come from the government? So in an indirect way, aren't the British taxpayers paying for it all anyway?

I've never been sure about the argument that the royals "pay for themselves" because they generate tourism. For huge spectacles like a royal wedding there is no question. But for their day-to-day existence that takes place year after year in between royal weddings -- do they really generate that much tourism? (or is the revenue generated by a royal wedding huge enough to cover their salaries for several years?)

I've never been to the UK but dearly hope to go someday, but when I do go it will be to see the sights -- the beautiful castles, the countryside, the museums, the city of London itself -- and wouldn't all of those still be there and accessible regardless of whether the royalty existed? I woudn't be going to "see the royals" -- not that I would get a chance to see them, even if I wanted to!

I guess I'm asking for enlightenment as much as I am making comments, since I am the first to admit my ignorance of how the system all works.