Queen Elizabeth has died at the age of 96.

I don't think it's 100% because of the Diana element, Frank. He's just not a very scintillating personality. I remember when they still did their tours together, Diana got all the attention because people were so charmed by her. He's just not a very interesting person. He's not particularly good-looking, isn't magnetic or charming in his own right and simply doesn't present as well as others.

I understand you feel that way, Mame...as MANY people do. I suspect many more people agree with you than with me, because I see Charles as an interesting, intelligent, charming person. I would not have liked to live the life he had to live...no matter that it was as a prince of the UK. His mother left him (as a child) in the custody of tenders while she and her husband toured the Commonwealth. She returned to the UK...and was in England for a month before finally asking to see him personally. He was sent by his father to a school where he was harassed mercilessly.

Okay, you find him to be without personality. I do not. I certainly like his personality much more than that of Diana. He is more mature...and more dedicated to the job.

As for his looks, he has the same problem I have...dealing with the fact that ones ears and nose continues to grow as long as one is alive. We live with it.

The wedding to Camilla wasn't much of an event.

He did do a BBC reading of his book one Christmas, but that was about it.

The Queen wasn't that dynamic either, she'd just always been there.

I didn't say he was without personality, Frank... just that compared to others in the public eye he's not as dynamic. He probably is all those wonderful things you said... but how would anyone know? And frankly, Frank, why would anyone really care? It's not like he's our neighbour.

I have never been a follower of celebrities be they royal or not and none of them matter to me because I'll never know them, so I'm speaking objectively here.

Diana probably was pretty empty-headed early on (her grandmother wrote romance novels) and desperately shy and he was likely bored by her. I forget the age difference but it does matter when you're having a conversation. He was also groomed from Day 1 and she had no idea what would be involved.

It's probably for the best that traditions have changed in this last go-round with Diana and then her children taking more of an interest in their children, among other things.

I personally think the Diana issue was a lot more complicated than just he had a mistress. Firstly, she was immature because she was very young and probably sheltered considering her family. Second, you don't know if she herself knew for a fact about Camilla. Third, Charles didn't keep her out of the way but thrust her in Diana's face and was indiscreet.

Lastly, he is caught up in this, "Cash for Honors" allegations scandal.

As you said, we have different ways of looking at it.

The pound is plummeting following a disatrous cut taxes for the rich and increase borrowing budget.

Even Tory backbenchers think it's disastrous.

Liz Truss will be the most disastrous prime minister in living history.

Nobody will be thinking about Charles, we'll all be up to our necks in ****.

Young and sheltered?

From the hoi polloi, the working classes, the unwadhed masses most certainly, but court politics, no way.

She went to an exclusive finishing school. The girls of landed gentry are bred for this sort of thing.

The fairy tale Beauty and The Beast was written for them. Belle, a beautiful young girl is wedded to an older man by her father. At first he appears like a beast but she grows to love him.

The aristos have always been about political marriages.

And Princes if Wales have always had mistresses.

The Prince Regent's marriage to Caroline of Brunswick is a case in point.

But they all did it.

Now ghis msy seem like an alien world to you, and it is to me, but for the aristocracy it's perfectly normal.

She would have had some idea of what she was going into.