Portrait or Richard III

The actor who played Prince Charles you may be refering to is Roger
Rees. (Robin Colcord on Cheers.) Though he is a bit older now, I
always beleived him to have sort of a Ricardian look, judging from
the portraits of course.

It was Martin Turner who plays Charles in the movie
about William. I looked at pictures of both on the
web - I remembered both as looking different and both
as looking far more alike! But Roger Rees doesn't
look that much unlike Charles in the movie about
Princess Diana that I remember. It was a movie
sympathetic to Diana and definitely not to Charles.
I don't remember any of the actors who have played
Prince Charles ever looking like Roger Rees, and I
think I have pretty much seen all of them! So
probably he is the actor I remember.

Who else thinks Richard III and Roger Rees as Charles
in the movie "Unhappily Ever After" look similar?

Yours,
Dora


--- bailey11354 <[email protected]> wrote:
> The actor who played Prince Charles you may be
> refering to is Roger
> Rees. (Robin Colcord on Cheers.) Though he is a bit
> older now, I
> always beleived him to have sort of a Ricardian
> look, judging from
> the portraits of course.
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I don't know about appearance, but both Charles & R3 seemed destined
to have fairly miserable lives.

Richard was a victim of the bungling of his brother in setting up a
bunch like the Woodvilles with Elizabeth Woodville as Queen and
Charles was unlucky in marrying Diana who was woefully inadequate as a
woman given her anorexia, bulimia & depressions and even more so as
Princess of Wales, given the fact that she tried to derail the
British Monarchy which had set her up so high, because her marriage
failed. Given her mood changes & philanderings - there's some
question over whether Harry was Charles's son - I'm not at all
surprised that the marriage failed. Her lack of judgement in her
affair with Dodi was typical. He was a wastrel playboy connected to a
family which had made money through the Arms trade, which Diana SEEMED
to dislike. Her sympathy vote only picked up because of her early
death. Everybody, ironically, is more kind when we are DEAD!

I vunder if ve are getting somewhere.

Anyone else agree with this view of Diana?

I have to agree that the man in that portrait would
have seen the matter exactly this way.

Anyone know what are Josephine Tey's views on the
matter?

How about what are her Tey's views on is it Barbara
Cartland? The woman who is really Reine, the
stepmother of Princess Diana. I think she kind of saw
it how the man in the portrait would have, too.

Dora




--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> I don't know about appearance, but both Charles & R3
> seemed destined
> to have fairly miserable lives.
>
> Richard was a victim of the bungling of his brother
> in setting up a
> bunch like the Woodvilles with Elizabeth Woodville
> as Queen and
> Charles was unlucky in marrying Diana who was
> woefully inadequate as a
> woman given her anorexia, bulimia & depressions and
> even more so as
> Princess of Wales, given the fact that she tried to
> derail the
> British Monarchy which had set her up so high,
> because her marriage
> failed. Given her mood changes & philanderings -
> there's some
> question over whether Harry was Charles's son - I'm
> not at all
> surprised that the marriage failed. Her lack of
> judgement in her
> affair with Dodi was typical. He was a wastrel
> playboy connected to a
> family which had made money through the Arms trade,
> which Diana SEEMED
> to dislike. Her sympathy vote only picked up
> because of her early
> death. Everybody, ironically, is more kind when we
> are DEAD!
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

If there's a moral about these two, it must be that care should be
taken over whom we marry.

Elizabeth and Diana were both pretty and attractive. Both loved
children: not unknown in women! But both were flawed in the sense
that they were wilful and scheming. Edward IV rushed into his
marriage, because parts of his anatomy other than his brain seem to
have dominated in these areas. He didn't consider the unpopularity
of
the Woodville brood with Warwick, Clarence & evidently Richard, etc.,
Charles, desperate in his thirties to marry & have children, also
evidently didn't realise that he was marrying someone fairly
brainless, mentally ill, who was more a clothes hanger than anything
else. People may say that Diana was charitable, but ALL of the major
members of the Royal Family have a duty to involve themselves with
charity. Diana was simply more noticeable, because she was better
looking and had the kindness of the nursey nurse, which she'd trained
in.

Diana with her affairs, which were widely unpopular, was rumoured to
have been assassinated. I'm sure Richard would've wished that
Elizabeth had gone the same way, but he, unlike his great-nephew:
Henry VIII, appeared to draw the line at killing women.

> >
> > Richard was a victim of the bungling of his brother
> > in setting up a > > bunch like the Woodvilles with Elizabeth
Woodville> > as Queen

Edward IV certainly lacked judgement over his choice of bride as did
Charles over his. Elizabeth Woodville and Diana of course traded on
their good looks and men often do fall for this. Marilyn Monroe was
another beauty who was nuerotic.

It shows that if Edward IV & Charles had shown more depth to their
personalities and had been able to stand back and look at the
personalities & characters of the women they married (& their
troublesome family backgrounds) they might have made a wiser choice.
Appearance is only skin deep and hardly compensates for a selfish,
greedy, nuerotic character.

Unfortunately, Charles, not the World's most handsome man, easily
succumbed to Diana's obvious charms, which she was all too good at
using, and Edward IV comes down to us as a drunken, obese lecher,
whose insight into character and politics was extremely limited.

Thomas More had the insight to recognise that the bickering that was
to bring down the Yorist House needed reconciliation and he recounts
Edward IV on his deathbed getting some of the warring factions to
pretend friendship. This is probably another idealistic myth dreamt
up by More, but in any case such a meeting didn't include the main
player: Richard & Hastings & Dorset were not likely to disagree with
their alcoholic and sometimes murderous King. More of course needed a
way for disagreement to be resolved for as we know the disagreements
over religion/politics of his own life were to separate his head from
his body. So much for his idealism and the raelity of his life!

Sorry, Willison.

I only read the first part of your letter. I didn't realize you felt
the same way toward Charles as you do toward Diana! It is so
unusual for someone to dislike Diana this strongly and dislike
Charles as strongly that I never thought the rest of your letter
would contain something different!

Dora


>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I don't know about appearance, but both Charles & R3
> > seemed destined
> > to have fairly miserable lives.
> >
> > Richard was a victim of the bungling of his brother
> > in setting up a
> > bunch like the Woodvilles with Elizabeth Woodville
> > as Queen and
> > Charles was unlucky in marrying Diana who was
> > woefully inadequate as a
> > woman given her anorexia, bulimia & depressions and
> > even more so as
> > Princess of Wales, given the fact that she tried to
> > derail the
> > British Monarchy which had set her up so high,
> > because her marriage
> > failed. Given her mood changes & philanderings -
> > there's some
> > question over whether Harry was Charles's son - I'm
> > not at all
> > surprised that the marriage failed. Her lack of
> > judgement in her
> > affair with Dodi was typical. He was a wastrel
> > playboy connected to a
> > family which had made money through the Arms trade,
> > which Diana SEEMED
> > to dislike. Her sympathy vote only picked up
> > because of her early
> > death. Everybody, ironically, is more kind when we
> > are DEAD!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

OK, I'm starting to like this man, even if I don't completely agree
with him.

Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I have two of them.
He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man with character.
He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and in one of them he
looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual individual, I mean).
Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly red, though hard to
tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy expression.

Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte book on Clarence,
looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!

Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in this menagerie! In
Merovingian times, every royal family had one.

Yours,
Dora


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard was a victim of the bungling of his brother
> > > in setting up a > > bunch like the Woodvilles with Elizabeth
> Woodville> > as Queen
>
> Edward IV certainly lacked judgement over his choice of bride as
did
> Charles over his. Elizabeth Woodville and Diana of course traded
on
> their good looks and men often do fall for this. Marilyn Monroe
was
> another beauty who was nuerotic.
>
> It shows that if Edward IV & Charles had shown more depth to their
> personalities and had been able to stand back and look at the
> personalities & characters of the women they married (& their
> troublesome family backgrounds) they might have made a wiser
choice.
> Appearance is only skin deep and hardly compensates for a selfish,
> greedy, nuerotic character.
>
> Unfortunately, Charles, not the World's most handsome man, easily
> succumbed to Diana's obvious charms, which she was all too good at
> using, and Edward IV comes down to us as a drunken, obese lecher,
> whose insight into character and politics was extremely limited.
>
> Thomas More had the insight to recognise that the bickering that
was
> to bring down the Yorist House needed reconciliation and he
recounts
> Edward IV on his deathbed getting some of the warring factions to
> pretend friendship. This is probably another idealistic myth
dreamt
> up by More, but in any case such a meeting didn't include the main
> player: Richard & Hastings & Dorset were not likely to disagree
with
> their alcoholic and sometimes murderous King. More of course
needed a
> way for disagreement to be resolved for as we know the
disagreements
> over religion/politics of his own life were to separate his head
from
> his body. So much for his idealism and the raelity of his life!

The young Edward IV was handsome (he certainly pulled many women,) but
a late portrait shows him as bloated, a bit like the way that Elvis
went. But of course the point I make is that Edward's character was
at fault. It's true that we rely on paintings & reports which may not
be accurate, but everyone agreed that Edward was virtually a sex
maniac - he clearly had gone off his wife probably due to her
demanding personality - a drunk and glutton. Like Elvis, Edward died
about 40! All of their good looks didn't save them from dubious
characters. Alcohol is notorious for wrecking health & ability.
Edward IV could only appear competent if you consider who preceeded
him: the hopelessly mad & inept Henry VI.

I agree with you about Henry VIII, but he was a grandson to Edward IV
& inherited many of his characteristics. He was a bloated ego maniac
and treated women terribly. It's said that despite all of his wives
he simply didn't know how to handle them. That's probably why he had
so many. His decapitation of 2 of them is unforgivable!

No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.

Richard did seem to have a religious bent, but that didn't prevent him
from siring several illegitimate children, from killing those who
crossed him: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Buckingham,
Collingbourne and several men with his own hand at Bosworth. Not your
average priest I suggest. I think he was more a military type who
dealt with opposition in a direct terminal way. Being a religious
knight was normal in those days, e.g. the kinights of Malta, and
religious hypocrites are plentiful whether then or now.

As I've said before, Edward, George and Richard were quite young when
their Father was beheaded, Richard was only 8 and this may've screwed
them up psychologically.

David


> Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I have two of them.

> He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man with character.
> He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and in one of them he
> looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual individual, I mean).
> Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly red, though hard to
> tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy expression.
>
> Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte book on Clarence,
> looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!
>
> Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in this menagerie! In
> Merovingian times, every royal family had one.
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
>

I wouldn't say that I do feel the same way about Charles as I do
about Diana. I was making a comparison between Edward IV & Charles
in their poor choice of wives. If Diana had remained as a nursery
nurse and become an average housewife she would've been OK, but, as
Princess of Wales, a possible future Queen and wife to Charles, a
King in waiting, she didn't suit the job description. She was
mentally unstable, had no sense of her Constitutional position and
no sense of loyalty to the family which had raised her so high. Her
promiscuity doesn't suggest a stable personality neither!

As for Charles, he did lack judgement, but I don't especially blame
him for that. Diana was very attractive and it's easy to fall for
a beautiful body. However, it's wise to get to know the person
first before leaping into bed. Arthur Miller, a clever playwright,
fell for the undoubted physical charms of Marilyn Monroe, but he
eventually divorced her, because she was too nuerotic to live with.
'Look before you leap,' is the saying.

Divorce is very unpleasant. The Queen & Prince Philip courted each
other long & found themselves compatible. Pity that Charles, Andrew &
Anne didn't do the same.

As for the Yorkist brothers, they were certainly colourful
personalities, because of their unstable personalities. But, to be
fair, Life is hard...for everyone!

David

--- In , "Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...>" <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> Sorry, Willison.
>
> I only read the first part of your letter. I didn't realize you
felt
> the same way toward Charles as you do toward Diana! It is so
> unusual for someone to dislike Diana this strongly and dislike
> Charles as strongly that I never thought the rest of your letter
> would contain something different!
>
> Dora

Henry VIII grandson to Edward IV - absolutely true,
and I hadn't ever realized it!

I don't think I did say how similar they actually look
- didn't think it was probable.

Dora




--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> The young Edward IV was handsome (he certainly
> pulled many women,) but
> a late portrait shows him as bloated, a bit like the
> way that Elvis
> went. But of course the point I make is that
> Edward's character was
> at fault. It's true that we rely on paintings &
> reports which may not
> be accurate, but everyone agreed that Edward was
> virtually a sex
> maniac - he clearly had gone off his wife probably
> due to her
> demanding personality - a drunk and glutton. Like
> Elvis, Edward died
> about 40! All of their good looks didn't save them
> from dubious
> characters. Alcohol is notorious for wrecking
> health & ability.
> Edward IV could only appear competent if you
> consider who preceeded
> him: the hopelessly mad & inept Henry VI.
>
> I agree with you about Henry VIII, but he was a
> grandson to Edward IV
> & inherited many of his characteristics. He was a
> bloated ego maniac
> and treated women terribly. It's said that despite
> all of his wives
> he simply didn't know how to handle them. That's
> probably why he had
> so many. His decapitation of 2 of them is
> unforgivable!
>
> No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!?
> Clarence may've
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel
> of Malmsey.
>
> Richard did seem to have a religious bent, but that
> didn't prevent him
> from siring several illegitimate children, from
> killing those who
> crossed him: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings,
> Buckingham,
> Collingbourne and several men with his own hand at
> Bosworth. Not your
> average priest I suggest. I think he was more a
> military type who
> dealt with opposition in a direct terminal way.
> Being a religious
> knight was normal in those days, e.g. the kinights
> of Malta, and
> religious hypocrites are plentiful whether then or
> now.
>
> As I've said before, Edward, George and Richard were
> quite young when
> their Father was beheaded, Richard was only 8 and
> this may've screwed
> them up psychologically.
>
> David
>
>
> > Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I
> have two of them.
>
> > He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man
> with character.
> > He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and
> in one of them he
> > looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual
> individual, I mean).
> > Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly
> red, though hard to
> > tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy
> expression.
> >
> > Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte
> book on Clarence,
> > looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!
>
> >
> > Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in
> this menagerie! In
> > Merovingian times, every royal family had one.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> >
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Edward & Richard fought in hand to hand combat which might involve
disembowelling or decapitating adversaries. This is brutal and
brutalising. I wonder if this type of experience affected their
personalities?


--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> Henry VIII grandson to Edward IV - absolutely true,
> and I hadn't ever realized it!
>
> I don't think I did say how similar they actually look
> - didn't think it was probable.
>
> Dora
>
>

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Edward & Richard fought in hand to hand combat which might involve
> disembowelling or decapitating adversaries. This is brutal and
> brutalising. I wonder if this type of experience affected their
> personalities?

Well, while modern psychology might not always be applicable to the
15th Century, death was a more accepted occurrence and might, just
*might*, make one a little more jaded towards some of the horrors of
war. Personally I cannot imagine since the circumstances you mention
were more commonplace that they would have the same effect on a
contemporary than on a modern person.

Just my $0.05


- Lars

Gee, I think that alot of people in Austin, Texas, in
2003 would have trouble comprehending. People in
Buffalo, NY, where I used to live, would not have the
same problem. But I really think they survived.

Sometimes I wonder if certain middle class WASP
American techniques of child rearing leaves kids
outright permanently foggy headed.

Dora

--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Edward & Richard fought in hand to hand combat which
> might involve
> disembowelling or decapitating adversaries. This is
> brutal and
> brutalising. I wonder if this type of experience
> affected their
> personalities?
>
>
> --- In , Dora
> Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > Henry VIII grandson to Edward IV - absolutely
> true,
> > and I hadn't ever realized it!
> >
> > I don't think I did say how similar they actually
> look
> > - didn't think it was probable.
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Thankyou.

>
> Well, while modern psychology might not always be
> applicable to the
> 15th Century, death was a more accepted occurrence
> and might, just
> *might*, make one a little more jaded towards some
> of the horrors of
> war. Personally I cannot imagine since the
> circumstances you mention
> were more commonplace that they would have the same
> effect on a
> contemporary than on a modern person.
>
> Just my $0.05
>
>
> - Lars
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com