The fact that Diana Spencer was descended from the Merovingian
dynasty did not make her MORE descended than her husband Charles.
All the royals of Europe and the United Kingdom are descended from
the Merovingian dynasty of France.  There are, I have read in genealogical
material, a million descendants from Clovis, the pre-eminent Merovingian
King.

Charles and Diana were descended on many lines from the same
ancestors, including their Stewart (Stuart) ancestors.  For instance,
C. and D. were both descended from the Stuart surnamed king, Charles II.
Charles is descended legitimately, Diana illegitimately.

Earlier Stuarts from whom both descend are Mary Queen of Scots and
her son, James I of England/VI of Scotland, the instigator of our King James
Bible.  James' offspring Elizabeth married a German prince (forming one line
of descent) and later this line returned to England as "the Hanoverian dynasty".
Other lines of descent, including through Charles II, also came from King James.

Mary Queen of Scots and her husband Lord Darnley, from whom these
Stuarts descended, were both of Stuart and Tudor descent, even though they
were not close cousins.

The problem with such descent, now recognized by the royal family, no doubt,
is that it produces the faulty genes from "inbreeding".  The family must by now
be more than grateful to be receiving the healthy bloodline of Catherine Middleton.

But still this myth persists of Diana, the coveted Merovingian virgin, when Charles
was also Merovingian, as indeed a million others are.  It's true, of course, that due
to extensive inbreeding, both Charles and Diana descended from more than one
line of Stuarts and hence Merovingians, and hence their genes are "thicker" with
Stuart and Merovee lines.

I think we might let Prince William be himself and see what becomes of him, and
not assume he is destined for dire leadership.  Pray for his soul and his redemption.
And that of his wife of the auspicious line of Middleton.