Is Prince William (apart from being royalty) that attractive?

robinph

Merch wrote: »

Most people, if they wanted to, ie had the will and the finances to become a helicopter pilot could. I'd say there is a lot of hand holding with very experienced instructors going on behind the scenes. Its unfortunate both he and his brother will never "really" be fully operational fulltime pilots yet take up spaces for a couple of people that might actually and in all probability would be better at/suited for the job.

There is no requirement to be a genius to be a pilot, it does take certain qualities, do I see him being a pilot in command flying Search and Rescue, not really, I mean is he doing it enough to get valuable experience?

Is he that attractive? I'm a guy, I seeing it from above not if he's a looker, but from an interview that I saw of them I think they seem to be into each other. Bastard for having that kind of access to heli training

He's been sat in the right hand seat in the recent shots that I've seen of him, that means he's in command from my understanding of helicopter seating arrangements. Fixed wing being left seat in charge. Helicopters are also a completely different beast to fly compared with fixed wing so it's not something that anyone could do at all.

William will not admittedly do a normal term of service as they are having him do a few years in each of the forces, but there is no similar requirement for Harry and he is much more likely to actually do a decent number of years in the forces. Once the Queen dies though then William will almost immediately be finished doing anything even remotely useful in the forces, but as long as Catherine/ Kate produces an heir or two soon enough then Harry can keep going as long as he wants and the forces will get their moneys worth out of him.

Merch

robinph wrote: »

He's been sat in the right hand seat in the recent shots that I've seen of him, that means he's in command from my understanding of helicopter seating arrangements. Fixed wing being left seat in charge. Helicopters are also a completely different beast to fly compared with fixed wing so it's not something that anyone could do at all.

I've seen plenty of staged photos for photo ops. Was the aircraft actually flying? and even if it was do you really think an instructor (actual Captain) cant do the job from the other seat?
Fixed wing is different, I agree. I am saying if you have the finances its possible to eventually get anywhere, you certainly dont need to be a genius, on the other hand I'm not saying he's dim or an idiot.

Truley

There's no such thing as an ugly rich guy!









*Joke*

Jesus Wept

Applications by females to attend to St Andrews (College William attended) increased by 44% when it was announced he would be attending.

Merch

The-Rigger wrote: »

Applications by females to attend to St Andrews (College William attended) increased by 44% when it was announced he would be attending.

I wonder was Ms Middleton one of those???? :rolleyes:

toodleytoo

I would say William is quite good looking. Obviously he's losing it a bit now that his hair is going!

Ickle Magoo

Merch wrote: »

I wonder was Ms Middleton one of those???? :rolleyes:

I think she was - did she not change location and course to head off for St Andrews...but then I think I read somewhere she's a 12th cousin to Wills anyway and her parents own a business worth millions, so she's hardly the commoner the press likes to keep harping on about...

stovelid

I would have certainly classified him as appearing to be quite conventionally handsome - if somewhat disfigured by the traditionally equine Windsor look.

Giselle

Merch wrote: »

There is no requirement to be a genius to be a pilot, it does take certain qualities, do I see him being a pilot in command flying Search and Rescue, not really, I mean is he doing it enough to get valuable experience?
(

Never said the guy was a genius, just that he probably wasn't thick as a plank. Maybe he is though, none of us know him personally so there isn't much point in speculating.

He seems nice enough, thats about the only judgement I could make about the guy.:)

parker kent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think she was - did she not change location and course to head off for St Andrews...but then I think I read somewhere she's a 12th cousin to Wills anyway and her parents own a business worth millions, so she's hardly the commoner the press likes to keep harping on about...

They say commoner because she was technically a commoner (i.e An ordinary person, without rank or title). Having a shared ancestor does not make her properly related to him.

Her mother grew up in a council estate too, so that is slightly different to how William's mother grew up. The parents became self-made millionaires through luck and wit. That doesn't change that strictly speaking, she is a commoner.

Nicoleye

Have to say i went off William a few years ago, but when i saw him in his uniform totally did it for me. His deep voice is nice too...

Harry looked like he could have had an oul trim on that red mop of hair in fairness, he is a cutie and he does look like Charles in my opinion.

spinandscribble

I agree Harry is naturally better looking (still I wouldn't, reds not my thing). William was better looking when he was younger but i guess his hairline ect hasn't done him any favors. I know its silly thing to say but he seems like a nice chap and unlike the rest of the royal family, harry/william don't irritate me.

TaraFoxglove

Merch wrote: »

I wonder was Ms Middleton one of those???? :rolleyes:

Very likely, I would say.

I don't think she's a gold-digger but maybe she's a Royal-digger.

Ickle Magoo

parker kent wrote: »

They say commoner because she was technically a commoner (i.e An ordinary person, without rank or title). Having a shared ancestor does not make her properly related to him.

Her mother grew up in a council estate too, so that is slightly different to how William's mother grew up. The parents became self-made millionaires through luck and wit. That doesn't change that strictly speaking, she is a commoner.

Meh, if her parents still lived on a council estate and she shared no common ancestry with the royal family, then she's be a commoner - I mean, Paris Hilton has no title but she's hardly a commoner...I know what you are saying but I still think the title is based more in fairy-tale tabloid world than reality. As commoners go, she ain't that common.

TaraFoxglove

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Meh, if her parents still lived on a council estate and she shared no common ancestry with the royal family, then she's be a commoner - I mean, Paris Hilton has no title but she's hardly a commoner...I know what you are saying but I still think the title is based more in fairy-tale tabloid world than reality. As commoners go, she ain't that common.

I reckon Parker's just saying that technically, technically, she is a commoner, and he's right! Kate DID face snobbery from some of Will's friends early on in their relationship due to both her parents being former flight attendants. Self-made money doesn't really impress the Aristocracy.

Ickle Magoo

See thru dresses tho?!

strobe

Old Squinty Baldy McHorseface? Yeah, I'm sure if he wasn't a prince he'd be beating them off with a stick...

whiteboy

he should have rocked out with this on the day

Dudess

toodleytoo wrote: »

I would say William is quite good looking. Obviously he's losing it a bit now that his hair is going!

God yeah, at the age of only 29 the years are doing their terrible dance. So like Diana there - he's a Prince Andrew (Fergie's ex husband) clone now.

TaraFoxglove

toodleytoo wrote: »

I would say William is quite good looking. Obviously he's losing it a bit now that his hair is going!

TBH, it's not just down to his balding, IMO. His face has changed too, for the worst.

merlie

He has inherited from his dad the impending bald spot at the top of his head, but apart from that I think he looks ok, but not dashing or handsome. I thought his uncle, Prince Andrew was fine looking when he was younger.

dfx-

I don't think the OP needs the apart from royalty stipulation..

I remember some survey asking British women did they want to be a princess and 71% said no..

panda100

The-Rigger wrote: »

Applications by females to attend to St Andrews (College William attended) increased by 44% when it was announced he would be attending.

I grew up in England, and am the same age as William, and loads of girls in my class applied to St. Andrews that year. Its not a difficult university to get into, but it's mega expensive and posh. Its not a university known for its academic brilliance but moreso for social climbing. I say its a total bore of a uni to go to.

Ickle Magoo

panda100 wrote: »

...but it's mega expensive and posh.

Unless you are scottish - in which case you don't pay fees in scottish universities. :cool:

It's also placed in the top 10 domestically for the past five years or so and being the third oldest university in the english speaking world, it will tend to be full of old traditions and old money. It's a lovely uni though, I don't know why you're presuming it's boring...certainly no more so than any other?

panda100

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unless you are scottish - in which case you don't pay fees in scottish universities. :cool:

It's also placed in the top 10 domestically for the past five years or so and being the third oldest university in the english speaking world, it will tend to be full of old traditions and old money. It's a lovely uni though, I don't know why you're presuming it's boring...certainly no more so than any other?

Well its packed with the elites of England, all drawn from the most expensive fee-paying schools in the land and US. When I was in school it was known as the school for all the ra's to go to to meet, marry and breed. I guess if that is what you want from a university education then it would be the perfect place to go. I think university should be about opening up your mind to the world around you, and that includes mixing with people outside your economic and social background.
Also, while St.Andrews is a very pretty town, its tiny and very isolated and theres no nightclub,pubs, music or art scenes at all. Personally for me I would have found that a bit boring. Also, I would like a bit of an academic challenge at university, but you can pass subjects in St.Andrew's by getting 20%.

It remains a mystery to many why it remains in the top 10 university in the UK, and I would say it has a lot to do with being a playground of the rich in the UK, rather than academic brilliance.

Ickle Magoo

Lol, meow...

Edited to add:

And just out of interest, which course allows a pass of 20%, I'm gonna sign up!

parker kent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Meh, if her parents still lived on a council estate and she shared no common ancestry with the royal family, then she's be a commoner - I mean, Paris Hilton has no title but she's hardly a commoner...I know what you are saying but I still think the title is based more in fairy-tale tabloid world than reality. As commoners go, she ain't that common.

Like TaraFoxglove said, I just mean that she was technically a commoner. She didn't have a rank or title. Therefore, she is a commoner. It is like somebody in the army referring to civilians. It's just a technical term. The word commoner may have taken on other connotations, but that's beside the point.

Nobody of her birth has married a future King for several centuries, so it is a noteworthy thing to speak about. It doesn't matter whether her family have 1 pound or 100 million pound, she was technically a commoner. It's not fairy tale tabloid speak, there are specific uses for the word.

Ickle Magoo

parker kent wrote: »

The word commoner may have taken on other connotations, but that's beside the point.

Well, not to the point I was making...

parker kent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, not to the point I was making...

But it is besides the point. A person without rank or title is marrying the future king. That makes her a commoner. So the media refer to her as a commoner. Nobody is making out she was destitute or selling melons from a stand in Sarff Lahndaan. They were just noting the rarity of a person without rank or title marrying the future king.

Ickle Magoo

Some of the stories have very much been pushing the whole "one of us plebs" angle...even me trying to ignore the lot having no interest in the priviledged house of anglo-germanic archaicness have picked up on it.

Did you know according to wikipedia both Prince Harry and Princess Anne are commoners?! So melon seller or no, at least she's in illustrious company.

robinph

They had to go back 12 generations in order to find a link between the two families. You'd be able to find a link between pretty much anyone once you go back that far so it's basically irrelevant. She grew up in pretty well off family, but her parents were in no way posh where they came from.

Edit: It's actually 15 generation they went back to find the link, it's only a vague possibility over the 12th generation link.

Ickle Magoo

Okay, okay, well, fair play to the royal stalker, ahem, I mean Princess Catherine... :pac:

robinph

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Okay, okay, well, fair play to the royal stalker, ahem, I mean Princess Catherine... :pac:

Princess William actually.

Which is why they are using the Duchess title instead as that sounds a bit less odd.

Ickle Magoo

Well, there you go - just goes to show how much the whole malarkey interests me, I don't know the titles and I have no idea what the dress looked like. Other than this thread which I thought might buck the trend, I was kinda hoping the whole wedding/royals thang would mercifully pass me by.

Catari Jaguar

William seems pleasant, grounded, polite and sweet. He has turned into Charles over the years, the only saving grace are the doe eyes from Diana.

Harry is more my thing, what with the devilish good looks, sense of humour, charity work, athleticisim, involvement in the army. He just seems like an all rounder and a really nice fella.

I am turned off by the royal connection. It's a minus.

parker kent

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, there you go - just goes to show how much the whole malarkey interests me, I don't know the titles and I have no idea what the dress looked like. Other than this thread which I thought might buck the trend, I was kinda hoping the whole wedding/royals thang would mercifully pass me by.

First off, never trust wikipedia! So tut tut Ickle :pac:

Pleb is basically another word for commoner. The Romans (where the word gained most recognition) had plebeian consuls. She was a pleb because she had no rank or title.

With all due respect Ickle (which you deserve!), I think your disinterest means you are missing little pieces of knowledge.

Ickle Magoo

I'd say huge chunks of information PK, I'm the first to admit I'm not much of a royalist...though I have met & spoken to the queen and prince philip if that counts for anything?!

I think the wikipedia article is based on British Law as to what constitutes a commoner ie no peer nor sovereignty - though some of the more archaic british laws are fairly peculiar...

daiixi

robinph wrote: »

Princess William actually.

Which is why they are using the Duchess title instead as that sounds a bit less odd.

I thought she is the Duchess of Cambridge because calling her Princess Catherine would upstage Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall who (depending on who is present) outranks Catherine by her marriage to Prince Charles.

ceadaoin.

daiixi wrote: »

I thought she is the Duchess of Cambridge because calling her Princess Catherine would upstage Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall who (depending on who is present) outranks Catherine by her marriage to Prince Charles.

I think only those who are members of the royal family by birth are given the title Princess + their own name. Otherwise they take the husbands title. So she is Princess William, the Duchess of Cambridge

Ickle Magoo

I think the queen can award anyone the title...if she so chooses.

Dudess

Kendra Broad Market wrote: »

Does anyone think that Kate Middleton's sister is a bit rough looking?

Hahaha! Because you personally don't fancy her? Good lord, I can only imagine the "unattractive"/"fat"/"bitter"/"jealous" cat-calls if a girl said that.

Actually a girl on Boards would only have to say "I personally don't think she's that pretty" to be subjected to the above abuse/presumptions, let alone call Pippa rough looking. :pac:

robinph

daiixi wrote: »

I thought she is the Duchess of Cambridge because calling her Princess Catherine would upstage Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall who (depending on who is present) outranks Catherine by her marriage to Prince Charles.

i don't think Camilla featured in the order of precedence of females for a while, although Diana would obviously have been second after the Queen when she was alive as the wife of the heir. I think Camilla officially came after Anne initially, but they have now tweaked the rules a bit and she would now rank above Kate. Catherine being a princess would not rank her above Camilla though, but you only get the prince or princess followed by your own name if your a child of a royal. There was no such person as princess Diana though and that was never her title.

It's all complicated and incredibly daft though.

parker kent

Dudess wrote: »

Hahaha! Because you personally don't fancy her? Good lord, I can only imagine the "unattractive"/"fat"/"bitter"/"jealous" cat-calls if a girl said that.

Actually a girl on Boards would only have to say "I personally don't think she's that pretty" to be subjected to the above abuse/presumptions, let alone call Pippa rough looking. :pac:

I agree with you there in that a personal dislike of somebody does not them unattractive. But there have been the equivalent comments made by girls about William in the thread too. So it's six of one, half a dozen of another.

Ickle Magoo

robinph wrote: »

...but you only get the prince or princess followed by your own name if your a child of a royal.

There has been notable exceptions though hasn't there? Princess Alice for instance? There is nothing bar tradition and a few noses being put out of joint stopping the queen from choosing to make kate a princess? Is there? And she will become princess when he takes the prince of wales title...though it will be as princess of wales rather than princess catherine...

*bows to superior knowledge on such things*

pow wow

Both are attractive to me a little bit but I'd class William as cute and Harry as sexy, if that makes sense? I really don't see the attraction with Pippa Middleton though - Kate yes, Pippa not really - she's just average looking to me.

daiixi

robinph wrote: »

i don't think Camilla featured in the order of precedence of females for a while, although Diana would obviously have been second after the Queen when she was alive as the wife of the heir. I think Camilla officially came after Anne initially, but they have now tweaked the rules a bit and she would now rank above Kate. Catherine being a princess would not rank her above Camilla though, but you only get the prince or princess followed by your own name if your a child of a royal. There was no such person as princess Diana though and that was never her title.

It's all complicated and incredibly daft though.

"Princess Catherine" would most definitely upstage "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" though.

parker kent

pow wow wrote: »

Both are attractive to me a little bit but I'd class William as cute and Harry as sexy, if that makes sense? I really don't see the attraction with Pippa Middleton though - Kate yes, Pippa not really - she's just average looking to me.

She has a pretty awesome body and is just sexy.

DeWitt

He was quite the looker back in the day

Madam

I personally like Harry(I have a thing for red haired men)but I'm surprised this thread has so many women agreeing that they can be 'sexy' or even desirable! I remember the 'OMG YOU DON'T FANCY HIM' brigade when at school just cos he was a red head:rolleyes: When did it become fashionable to fancy a red haired guy(oul woman asking)?

Madam

DeWitt wrote: »

He was quite the looker back in the day

Ah, he looks like his mother there but the Windsor genes will out in time!