Style queen: Queen Victoria (1819-1901) and her great-great-greatgreat-granddaughter, Princess Beatrice, have similar faces and locks
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 ...
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
They are stretching it on some of those picture comparisons.
Agreed.
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
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.
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.”
They've always been "into partying".
BTW, there's a remarkable similarity of "faces" since the 10th century in "the family".
The biggest difference was Fleet St cooperation with the palace, a well placed word and a royal scrape never was reported.
“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.
On second thought, agreed. And maybe a deferential press helped also.
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.
By Jove, you’ve got it.
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.
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)
I don’t think Beatrice looks much like Victoria. For one thing, that’s surely not Bea’s original nose.
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.
“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.
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.