Portrait of Charles looks like hell.

[mellie]

Royalty is a prison of sorts. Those of them who try to rebel inevitably fail dismally like a curse. Everything is controlled and duty is expected. Everything is pressure to perform. I would hate to be a royal. Especially under such Media scrutiny every day, every word, every action.
It would be hell indeed being a royal, especially British more than most.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more, I wouldn't want to be a royal for quids.

[tllwd]

Other red paintings in history of art.

redpaintings.gif

[tllwd]

bigred.gif

[Jasin]

Good add on Tallo.

Red really is a very Australian colour in regards to the land and quite a few animals, compared to other regions.

[tllwd]

Charles 3 painted by AI.

chrls3smlrd.gif

[Bobby]

Red pictures are satanic.

[mellie]

Didn't Charles maintain affections with Camilla during his relationship with Diana, even before she fell pregnant with Prince William, which resulted in Diana feeling discarded? The third wheel in his long-standing true love affair with Camilla?

Put simply, Charles wanted Camilla, however she was a divorcee, and had children therefore his mother, Elizabeth didnt approve.

The unity between himself and Diana was arranged between the monarchy and the Spencer's.

Diana was naieve, in love with Charles, and Charles never wanted to marry her to begin with however his mother insisted that he create airs with quality virgin stock and forget Camilla, his true love.

It's a tragedy, Diana's self-destructive and rebellious media- whoring antics that followed was her desperate attempt to get back at the monarchy, grab Charles's attention, to punish him for betraying her, and I think she believed that if she harmed his reputation enough, he'd return to her, his mother would insist, fix things, however he wasn't able to, because his heart truly belonged to Camilla, long before he even met Diana.

You can blame Elizabeth for this, because Camilla just didn't live up to what the monarchy wanted for breeding an air. They were ok with him sleeping around with Camilla, just she wasn't elegant enough, attractive enough nor innocent enough for breeding with.

Charles finally has his true love, sadly, Diana is dead, wasn't able to watch her children grow up , get married and or even know her grandchildren.

The monarchy has a history for arranging marriages, being prejudice, denying airs of their true loves, and I believe that this is why Sussexes have a beef with them too.

Meghan was also a divorcee, and worse, an American with African gene's.

They just couldn't have this, and whilst I am aware of the Sussexes shortcomings, re- antics and so forth, the Queen nor the monarchy and staff itself didn't want Meghan involved with Harry right from the beginning, and I have absolutely no doubt that she felt this, knew that she wasn't deemed good enough to marry Harry, or any member of their fair headed royal blue-eyed family.

Harry broke ranks and married his true love, unlike his father who married who he was told to marry and breed with first.

The whole affair is a royal tragedy, a story of longing, unrequited love, arranged marriage and shattered airs who grew up systematically being raised by an administration, and I think Harry was especially sensitive and wasn't as resilient as his older brother so struggled greatly with all of it.

Either way, this is someone's family, their sad story, and it really annoys me when people are so quick to judge either Diana or Camilla and especially their emotionally abandoned offspring who were airs/ spairs, not really regarded as grieving children from a broken family.

No wonder Harry's been banished, the administration want the public to focus on King William and Kate ....the only couple since Queen Elizabeth and Prince George to have been seen as anything remotely stable and happy ever after.

This is the long and short of it.

Because not all princes nor princess's live happily ever after, a narrative that the royal administration would prefer we didn't focus our attentions on.

The royal family is being held incumbent by the British government and traditionalists ....however radical Islamisation and wokism has resulted in the fall of London.

Now more than ever, we need to maintain ties and support one another through adversity, this all began with 9/11, and intelligence tells us they're only just getting started and have plans on destroying Australia too.

We need to stand strong and united. AUKUS needs to prevail.
Everyone wants a piece of Australia, China, Russia, .... but we need to remain strong and united, through the good times and more difficult times too.

Now isn't the time to be abandoning old friends.

Now isn't the time to be seen as weak fickle fair-weatherd friends either, particularly when Russia and China has infiltrated our neighbours and has an agenda.

Our freedom shouldn't be for sale, however Albanese ( Labor government) has no intentions of standing-up to our adversary's, he is happy to just go along with the un-patriotic woke , China , Russia, rather than demonstrate any genuine strength and commitment towards Australia.

This being said, Labor and Albanese don't want anyone else aka Dutton demonstrating loyalty or strength towards Australia either, would prefer that we focus on his pre- election sweeteners and forget about just what a mess Australia will be in should Labor get re- elected.

It will certainly teach Australians a valuable lesson that's for sure, the lesson being to not take our nations wealth and freedoms for granted and to stop voting with our feet.

Make an effort to understand exactly what we're voting for, prior to casting a vote either way.

The problem with Australia is our relative naievity, we are a little bit like princess Diana at age 17, and this really needs to change.

Time Australia grew up and stopped being so reliant on other nations for our security.

[tllwd]

As you name the boat, so shall it float.

The "Carolingian curse" is a term sometimes used to refer to the misfortunes or struggles faced by rulers named Charles in the European royal dynasties, particularly in Britain and France. This belief suggests that the name Charles may have a history of negative outcomes or even misfortune associated with it for those who bear it as monarchs.

[mellie]

Or, just a dysfunctional family?