Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The throne clones: How the Royal Family inherited more than just their titles
Daily Mail ^ | 26th October 2009 | Daily Mail Reporter

Posted on 10/26/2009 4:39:48 AM PDT by Daffynition

You may think that Princess Beatrice has her father's face and her mother's hair. But as the pictures below show, she also bears a striking resemblance to a young Queen Victoria.[snip]


Style queen: Queen Victoria (1819-1901) and her great-great-greatgreat-granddaughter, Princess Beatrice, have similar faces and locks

Many more images at the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1222921/The-throne-clones-How-Royal-Family-inherited-just-titles.html#ixzz0V2a812P6

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Arts/Photography; History; Society
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last


pitting image: The nose and eyes of Edward VII (1841-1910) have been passed to great-great-grandson Charles


Spot the difference: Mary (1867-1953), King George V's consort, and granddaughter Queen Elizabeth II

1 posted on 10/26/2009 4:39:49 AM PDT by Daffynition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

They are stretching it on some of those picture comparisons.


2 posted on 10/26/2009 4:43:09 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cranked

Agreed.


3 posted on 10/26/2009 4:45:04 AM PDT by Daffynition (What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Princess Diana look-a-like discovers they are real cousins Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-465386/Princess-Diana-look-like-discovers-real-cousins.html#ixzz0V2eOWxRr


4 posted on 10/26/2009 4:48:44 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition
The big difference being the royals of old had a smidge of class, restraint ,and had a knowledge of proper behavior.

Nowadays they are merely overly wealthy, arrogant party people who exist to have fun

After reading up on the exploits of some the younger royals, I think maybe I've been a little hard on Paris Hilton.

5 posted on 10/26/2009 4:51:20 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns (As always, I apologize if I've offended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

I think some of the pictures are more of a match than others. One of the comments on the Daily Mail site pronounced them “in-breds, the lot of them.”


6 posted on 10/26/2009 4:55:35 AM PDT by Cloverfarm (Obama = Nixon II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
You err ~ the difference between the Royals of Old and the current generation is simply one of press coverage.

They've always been "into partying".

BTW, there's a remarkable similarity of "faces" since the 10th century in "the family".

7 posted on 10/26/2009 4:59:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

The biggest difference was Fleet St cooperation with the palace, a well placed word and a royal scrape never was reported.


8 posted on 10/26/2009 5:03:36 AM PDT by kalee (01/20/13 The end of an error.... Obama even worse than Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

“The big difference being the royals of old had a smidge of class, restraint ,and had a knowledge of proper behavior.”

No, they didn’t. They just didn’t have TV cameras in their faces all the time.


9 posted on 10/26/2009 5:13:53 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cloverfarm
I love the irreverence.


10 posted on 10/26/2009 5:26:39 AM PDT by Daffynition (What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
"...They just didn’t have TV cameras in their faces all the time...."

On second thought, agreed. And maybe a deferential press helped also.

11 posted on 10/26/2009 5:29:03 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns (As always, I apologize if I've offended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

12 posted on 10/26/2009 5:29:58 AM PDT by Daffynition (What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono
It never reigns but it pours.


13 posted on 10/26/2009 5:31:01 AM PDT by Daffynition (What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

I have noted that royalty in the Iberian peninsula tend to be quite homely, proving beyond doubt that the reign in Spain falls mainly on the plain.


14 posted on 10/26/2009 6:16:39 AM PDT by Hootowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl

By Jove, you’ve got it.


15 posted on 10/26/2009 6:27:02 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spirito Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
The big difference being the royals of old had a smidge of class, restraint ,and had a knowledge of proper behavior.

That image of the Royals was cultivated by Victoria and Albert. Victoria's father and uncles, the sons of George III, were notorious womanizers, perhaps even worse, and brutes. They almost destroyed the Monarchy.

16 posted on 10/26/2009 6:34:53 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
In the past the Royals had real duties. The performance of those duties required restraint and proper behavior.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

17 posted on 10/26/2009 6:38:22 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

I don’t think Beatrice looks much like Victoria. For one thing, that’s surely not Bea’s original nose.


18 posted on 10/26/2009 6:43:12 AM PDT by Tax-chick (God is great, and wine is good, and people are crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition
In-bred zeros...elevated to positions of grandeur by the simpering masses of idiots that they scam over and steal from every day.

Royalty...hah!

I seem to remember a little war (I wasn't there, but...) that was fought over this "royalty" thing and the levy of taxes to support the cavorting of the so-called "royalty".

We didn't need them then, we sure as hell don't need them now.

19 posted on 10/26/2009 7:01:50 AM PDT by OldSmaj (I am an avowed enemy of islam and Obama is a damned fool and traitor. Questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

“On second thought, agreed. And maybe a deferential press helped also. “

Or no press, or a press that wanted to keep heads and shoulders property attached.

Royal scandals are as old as royalty - starting with David and Bathsheba, but with English royalty, as with most European royalty, marriages were political arrangements, and kings were expected to have mistresses. But even when the marriages were good ones, mistresses were maintained.

It was usually kept below the public radar screen , but sometimes it was so scandalous that it couldn’t be kept quiet. One such was Henry II. he had taken Eleanor of Aquitaine from her first husband, King Louis of France, when he (Henry) was only the Count of Anjou, and not yet King of England or Duke of Normandy. It was to be a love match for many years, but when King Henry arranged a marriage with his son and heir apparent with a european princess, he (King Henry) fell in love with her and kept her as his mistress.

Henry the son died before becoming king, and was replaced by Richard, known as the lion hearted, as heir apparent, but the affair alienated the king from both his wife, Eleanor, and his sons, who made war on him until his death.

Then there was Edward II’s queen, who, along with her lover, imprisoned the king and tortured him to death, and were subsequently deposed by her son, Edward III.

Richard the lionhearted was reputed to not be very lion like in some ways, and Charles II was called the merry monarch for a good reason, but he had no legitimate male offspring, leaving his Catholic brother James as his successor, who was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution.

George IV and Edward VIII, Victoria’s son and heir, were both well known for preferring mistresses to their wives.

The difference - we have 24/7 news on TV and the internet, and freedom of the press.


20 posted on 10/26/2009 7:37:54 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson