It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An English King - shows his face for the first time in 500 years.
page: 3share:
reply to post by skalla
Yeah but look at their faces, even if they had mud all over their faces. There is something very distinct about them. Generally.
Yeah but look at their faces, even if they had mud all over their faces. There is something very distinct about them. Generally.
reply to post by Amadeo
yes he is gay. lol to what you said, yes he has that look. He is very handsome though, an intelligent face. But the ginger part of his hair, I dont know if I like that. Bit like Prince Harry.
yes he is gay. lol to what you said, yes he has that look. He is very handsome though, an intelligent face. But the ginger part of his hair, I dont know if I like that. Bit like Prince Harry.
reply to post by HelenConway
He definitely does have a boyish/slightly feminine look about the face and his slight build was obviously used against him at a time when kings were supposed to be manly, majestic etc and here you have a small, pretty man.
Loved that doc, I watched in Tuesday. I'm just off to start the Princes in the Tower one now.
He definitely does have a boyish/slightly feminine look about the face and his slight build was obviously used against him at a time when kings were supposed to be manly, majestic etc and here you have a small, pretty man.
Loved that doc, I watched in Tuesday. I'm just off to start the Princes in the Tower one now.
reply to post by FreedomEntered
I don't want to take the thread off topic but I agree that he's very handsome. I think the same about Prince Harry too if I'm honest. Prince William lost his good looks rather rapidly if I remember rightly. He's been left with the Windsor horsey look.
Right, I am off to watch the Princes in the Tower documentary
I don't want to take the thread off topic but I agree that he's very handsome. I think the same about Prince Harry too if I'm honest. Prince William lost his good looks rather rapidly if I remember rightly. He's been left with the Windsor horsey look.
Right, I am off to watch the Princes in the Tower documentary
Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by FreedomEntered
bearing in mind that those at the top of the social heap enjoyed the most varied diet, relatively superior hygiene, got plenty of rest and trained from an early age for war (eg riding, sword play etc for males).. as well as avoiding the grinding drudgery of serfdom, it's no surprise that they looked the way they did.
ETA: there is a saying in the uk re attractive noble's daughters - "it took centuries of careful in-breeding to look this good" !!
edit on 7-2-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)
maybe these days because they tend to marry models
I dunno in days gone there were some right stinkers, literally and to look at, One of Henry 8ths wives umm I think Anne of Cleves,
Where Richard the Lionheart was sexy - a real warrior man and King. I am not sure I like what he did at Acre though, chopping off his prisoners heads. Not nice.
I am fascinated by those Knights Templars.
reply to post by Amadeo
I just morphed Prince william and kate middletons baby lol.. hes going to be a right ugly one. Not sure why he picked kate middleton.
And when you morph their faces togeather they seem ordinary and boring. Like the sort of person you might avoid . What Im getting at is that I dont think todays monarchs have the traits of yesterdays monarchs. If going by faces. I think they have to wave, look pleasent, agreeable, happy and thats about it..
www.morphthing.com...[editby ]edit on 7-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)
I just morphed Prince william and kate middletons baby lol.. hes going to be a right ugly one. Not sure why he picked kate middleton.
And when you morph their faces togeather they seem ordinary and boring. Like the sort of person you might avoid . What Im getting at is that I dont think todays monarchs have the traits of yesterdays monarchs. If going by faces. I think they have to wave, look pleasent, agreeable, happy and thats about it..
www.morphthing.com...[editby ]edit on 7-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)
reply to post by FreedomEntered
to get at her sister of course!
and that baby isnt so ugly, it just needs to smile
i love how this has become a royal phwooarrr-fest
to get at her sister of course!
and that baby isnt so ugly, it just needs to smile
i love how this has become a royal phwooarrr-fest
amusingly, the leader of scarborough borough council has called for the remains to be buried at york minster, as he grew up in the area, and rather
brilliantly, says leicester cannot be trusted to rebury him as they misplaced the body for 500 years!
he's started a petition which has 1000's of signatures already....you just cant beat bluff yorkshiremen
www.bbc.co.uk...
he's started a petition which has 1000's of signatures already....you just cant beat bluff yorkshiremen
www.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 7-2-2013 by skalla because: i dont always post on ats, but when i do i like to include a few typos
Originally posted by skalla
amusingly, the leader of scarborouh borough council has called for the remains to be buried at york minster, as he grew up in the area, and rather brilliantly, says leicester cannot be trusted to rebury him as they misplaced the body for 500 years!
he's started a petition which has 1000's of signatures already....you just cant beat bluff yorkshiremen
www.bbc.co.uk...
wow thanks for that ! I would be happy with York, after all he was a York, it was his town.
Will sign,
reply to post by skalla
Okay but look at faces. Notice the rothschild and royal family have extremely similar faces. Look back. What Im saying is faces do show character abit anyway.
Now the original king had a much kinder face, his face was more common, but somehow also stubborn and humane.
The faces that developed showed like a distance, a snobbery, and a ruthlessness.
What Im getting at is if its the case that todays monarch are not the real monarch. Then it is the case however that they are master manipulators at changing the gene pool.
Have a look.
Okay but look at faces. Notice the rothschild and royal family have extremely similar faces. Look back. What Im saying is faces do show character abit anyway.
Now the original king had a much kinder face, his face was more common, but somehow also stubborn and humane.
The faces that developed showed like a distance, a snobbery, and a ruthlessness.
What Im getting at is if its the case that todays monarch are not the real monarch. Then it is the case however that they are master manipulators at changing the gene pool.
Have a look.
edit on 7-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)
reply to post by HelenConway
through the fug of my sunday morning hangover (quite the doozy!) i almost heard a radio report about a plan to bury him at some out of the way church near his birthplace i think, and it was suggested that this would be a bad idea due to the intense short term interest and huge visitor numbers requiring infrastructure investment that had no long term future (as interest would die off in a couple of years).
i think york minster sounds like the most reasonable place to bury the remains.
through the fug of my sunday morning hangover (quite the doozy!) i almost heard a radio report about a plan to bury him at some out of the way church near his birthplace i think, and it was suggested that this would be a bad idea due to the intense short term interest and huge visitor numbers requiring infrastructure investment that had no long term future (as interest would die off in a couple of years).
i think york minster sounds like the most reasonable place to bury the remains.
Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by HelenConway
through the fug of my sunday morning hangover (quite the doozy!) i almost heard a radio report about a plan to bury him at some out of the way church near his birthplace i think, and it was suggested that this would be a bad idea due to the intense short term interest and huge visitor numbers requiring infrastructure investment that had no long term future (as interest would die off in a couple of years).
i think york minster sounds like the most reasonable place to bury the remains.
It is so political isn't it - leicester want him for the tourist dollars and funding, nothing to do with the man.
He should be given a state funeral at York Minster or Westminster abbey and as a Catholic.
This whole episode is rubbing important people up the wrong way. The Royals note are keeping out of it.
The pretenders I SHOULD say
reply to post by FreedomEntered
not sure if i was looking at the right link or not, but i went to the one with lots of 17c paintings.. i went through the first page and they do look a lot a like, but then they are the same family (and carefully inter-married, no doubt)!
not sure if i was looking at the right link or not, but i went to the one with lots of 17c paintings.. i went through the first page and they do look a lot a like, but then they are the same family (and carefully inter-married, no doubt)!
reply to post by skalla
[more
compare their faces to the rothschild family. what I mean is the royals started as normal good folk and ended up as elitists. I just wonder what they are up to now with kate middleton who looks abit like king richard lol
[more
compare their faces to the rothschild family. what I mean is the royals started as normal good folk and ended up as elitists. I just wonder what they are up to now with kate middleton who looks abit like king richard lol
reply to post by HelenConway
i think it's a bit late for a state event myself, but i reckon york could put on a good local bit of pomp, that seems more appropriate to me.
as for the whole pretenders thing, well, they all are, the first real line of the kings of england died with the Aethlings, as mentioned earlier (by flavian? iirc), but it's all just a history of battles, land grabbing, politics and keeping people in "their place" through force. bleh
we dont owe them anything if you ask me, despite how fascinating and colourful i find the history.
i think it's a bit late for a state event myself, but i reckon york could put on a good local bit of pomp, that seems more appropriate to me.
as for the whole pretenders thing, well, they all are, the first real line of the kings of england died with the Aethlings, as mentioned earlier (by flavian? iirc), but it's all just a history of battles, land grabbing, politics and keeping people in "their place" through force. bleh
we dont owe them anything if you ask me, despite how fascinating and colourful i find the history.
Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by HelenConway
Actually I dont think it was the royality I fancied.
www.bbc.co.uk...#/search/l ocated_at/national-trust-lacock-abbey-fox-talbot-museum-and-village-4975_locations?=&page=1
Have a look at their faces. Very similar to each other too. They are the upper crusts of British Society.edit on 7-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)
Fascinating subject and wonderful thread!
IMO, the similarity between all of them looks to be due to the painter himself. They are all very similar definitely in style and aspect... and they all seem to vary only slightly.. as if it was the painter painting them all in a similar way rather than them all looking so similar.
One of my cousins married a man she met in London, but was actually Welsh. He and his family are stocky, swarthy, and fighty... and not overly attractive. Then again, I dont find the King in the OP very attractive, either! His pedigree goes back to a man named Hyfaidd. I dont recall the whole name. It just seemed so unusual to me it stuck!
reply to post by FreedomEntered
they do look equally inbred, maybe thats what happens to your face after too long in a restricted gene pool!
i gotta disagree with the idea that they all started off as good folk and ended up as elitists though.. they were always that way, generally doing anything they could to protect and advance their family position just the same as today. ref all the alliances, betrayals, skulduggery and so on - its a grubby and greedy history when you look into it - tremendous fun to read about though.
they do look equally inbred, maybe thats what happens to your face after too long in a restricted gene pool!
i gotta disagree with the idea that they all started off as good folk and ended up as elitists though.. they were always that way, generally doing anything they could to protect and advance their family position just the same as today. ref all the alliances, betrayals, skulduggery and so on - its a grubby and greedy history when you look into it - tremendous fun to read about though.
i'm gonna get all deliberately controversial here helen, so bite that tongue as i can tell you aint a fan of the tudors...
..but one could argue that the tudors are far more rightly kings of these islands, being of proper welsh descent.
this would mean that they are descended from proper british stock, seeing as all the "real" britons (ie brythonic ancient britons) were pushed into wales and cornwall by the romans, angles, saxons and so on.
the aethlings, plantagents etc *could* be argued to be a bunch of johnny come lateleys.
ha!
..but one could argue that the tudors are far more rightly kings of these islands, being of proper welsh descent.
this would mean that they are descended from proper british stock, seeing as all the "real" britons (ie brythonic ancient britons) were pushed into wales and cornwall by the romans, angles, saxons and so on.
the aethlings, plantagents etc *could* be argued to be a bunch of johnny come lateleys.
ha!
reply to post by skalla
Yep, I just find it interesting that their faces are similar to rothschild. I mean these are seperate bloodlines, but the traits in their personality you might say are similar too. Both hoarding masses amount of money, the desire to be above the local scum, the ruthlessness and so forth.
Okay fair enough. The house of the Tudors were the least attractive.
Yep, I just find it interesting that their faces are similar to rothschild. I mean these are seperate bloodlines, but the traits in their personality you might say are similar too. Both hoarding masses amount of money, the desire to be above the local scum, the ruthlessness and so forth.
Okay fair enough. The house of the Tudors were the least attractive.
Do you know if Kate middleton has ANY royal blood? I mean its unusual for them to marry a commoner. I dont think the fact that she has ancestors who
kinda ruled their little towns as counting for royal blood. Its a brave move for them