Queen Elizabeth as Monarch, Mother and Grandmother

[Curryong]

I'm possibly, even probably, a good bit older than you, kath129. My parents were monarchists (more by habit than conviction, perhaps) and I was brought up on stories culled from magazines by my mother on Prince Charles and Princess Anne's upbringing and the family life of the BRF.

I agree that times and values have changed in the last fifty/sixty years, but I clearly remember the royal family being presented constantly to the public in glowing terms as the family unit to be emulated and admired above all others.

I'm not so sure, with this in mind, that people would have been shocked had the Queen stayed by a sick child's bedside, say, instead of performing a Royal engagement. In the mores of the times that would have been presented as 'the Queen as Mummy'. It's the Queen's sense of duty that drove her on IMO.

However, quite early in Charles's childhood Princess Elizabeth reportedly came back to Britain from Malta and instead of going to see Charles, who was with his grandmother, she went to the races and then to Sandringham. I think she missed his second birthday in the process. I read this in a biography not a Press article but I'd have to look it up to see which bio. It may well have been one on Charles.

 

[Lilyflo]

Yes she did miss some of her children's birthdays for social events & they also had a father - shouldn't let him off the hook!

 

[Curryong]

No, that's true but with the Charles birthday incident at least, Philip was a serving officer in the RN and may have been on board ship at this time.

 

[Lilyflo]

No, that's true but with the Charles birthday incident at least, Philip was a serving officer in the RN and may have been on board ship at this time.

Yes he was then but I'm sure in one of the biographies there's a reference to him being away shooting or something like that for some of his children's birthdays.

 

[Denville]

No, that's true but with the Charles birthday incident at least, Philip was a serving officer in the RN and may have been on board ship at this time.

I think that the queen and PHilip belong to the generation that didn't feel the need to be with their children constantly. They had their work and their social life, which had an element of work about it.. it was how things got done, meeting at shooting parties or the like with people in the same line of work.. and that was primary importance..not taking the kids out. THe children had their nannies or were at school and they were well looked after.. and if the parents were away on a tour as ELiz and Philip were, there were grandparents to keep an eye on them.. so I don't think that they felt the need to sit around and eat cake at a children's party with the kids, they would have a celebration maybe at a later date, but Nanny or granny was there to make a fuss on the actual day and the parents didn't feel guilty if they had some other engagement. But I don't believe that the queen would actually forget the date of a birthday.. she just might not make a fuss on the day or have a present ready...

 

[Mbruno]

. But I don't believe that the queen would actually forget the date of a birthday.. she just might not make a fuss on the day or have a present ready...

Would she perhaps send a card or a letter to her children on their birthdays when she was away in a work or social engagement ?

 

[Denville]

Would she perhaps send a card or a letter to her children on their birthdays when she was away in a work or social engagement ?

Really I have no idea. Im sure there are usuallly family celebrations but they probably take place on a convenient date not on the day

 

[Lilyflo]

Would she perhaps send a card or a letter to her children on their birthdays when she was away in a work or social engagement ?

Yes I think she would. She certainly had an army of aides to remind her if she became distracted by work. They were all at boarding school from quite a young age so wouldn't be home on their birthdays after about 8-10yrs old (apart from Anne who was born in August). Before the age of 8yrs though, unless the parents were away working, you'd expect them to show up for their children's birthdays & they probably did mostly but not always (if I'm remembering what I read correctly - heaven knows where it was).

 

[Somebody]

By the sound of it, it seems that children were mainly considered a necessary burden that you needed as an investment in the continuation of the family. And probably to show off at times for the world - to present the imsge of a happy family.

Luckily they had a grandmother who was interested in what was going on in their lives.

 

[Lilyflo]

It's always difficult to criticise parents because almost all parents love their children & want what's best for them.

If I had to pick between these two scenarios, I know which I think would be better for the children:

1 See the children twice a day at breakfast & tea/bath time. Play with them, read to them, walk the dogs with them etc.

2 See the children almost all day but keep them occupied with screens & toys while you do your housework & check your phone.

I know a happy medium is ideal but the 1st doesn't sound so bad when pitted against the 2nd.

 

[Denville]

By the sound of it, it seems that children were mainly considered a necessary burden that you needed as an investment in the continuation of the family. And probably to show off at times for the world - to present the imsge of a happy family.

Luckily they had a grandmother who was interested in what was going on in their lives.

Not necessarily. But people didn't feel they needed to be there every possible moment. Middle class people tended to concentrate on tehir careers, because they felt they needed to earn a living. Workng class people - they were usualy more involved iwht their children but their childhood ended early because they had to get into a job as soon as possible .

 

[Somebody]

It's always difficult to criticise parents because almost all parents love their children & want what's best for them.

If I had to pick between these two scenarios, I know which I think would be better for the children:

1 See the children twice a day at breakfast & tea/bath time. Play with them, read to them, walk the dogs with them etc.

2 See the children almost all day but keep them occupied with screens & toys while you do your housework & check your phone.

I know a happy medium is ideal but the 1st doesn't sound so bad when pitted against the 2nd.

Don't forget the 'and go weeks or months without seeing them at all' in scenario 1

I don't know any family fow whom scenario 2 is the reality (I'm not saying it doesn't exist). Most will at least have meals together, bath them and put them to bed, so that's already more 'quality time' than included in scenario 1.

 

[Somebody]

Not necessarily. But people didn't feel they needed to be there every possible moment. Middle class people tended to concentrate on tehir careers, because they felt they needed to earn a living. Workng class people - they were usualy more involved iwht their children but their childhood ended early because they had to get into a job as soon as possible .

Imo there is a big difference between having someone else raise your children (not being there every possible moment is quite euphamistic) as was customary in the upper class and raising your children yourself (without necessarily doing everything yourself).

To clarify, children were (also) an assurance for the future for all classes, not just upper class - and part of the reason for either a strong desire for a son and/or for having many children. For the upper class because their whole system depended upon inheritance and for the middle and working class to take care of them when needed/older.

 

[Denville]

Of course they are. Without children, people in the past had no assurance that there would be someone to look after them or provide for them as they grew older.. before there was a welfare state. ANd by the same token, parents had to provide for their children, so the man usually worked and the mother was a bit more involved in the care of the children. However she also networked and socialised with her husbands friends which was considered important to his work.. so she wasn't caring for them all the time. THey were sent to good schools to get a good education so that in due course they would get good jobs.. so they weren't home for months of the year.

 

[Denville]

Don't forget the 'and go weeks or months without seeing them at all' in scenario 1

I don't know any family fow whom scenario 2 is the reality (I'm not saying it doesn't exist). Most will at least have meals together, bath them and put them to bed, so that's already more 'quality time' than included in scenario 1.

the reason that people went weeks or months without seeing their children was usually to do with the kids being at school..

And upper and middle class family were often working abroad and their children would be sent hom to England for education, so they wouldn't see the children for years at time. In the Queens younger days tours were quite long and again, she'd be away while the kids were at home. Nowadays, royals if possible do take even small babies with them...but htat didn't happen in her day....

 

[Claire]

That's a weird story. The Queen has numerous aides who oversee her diaries & I can't believe a family member's birthday wasn't recorded & planned for.

The incident was recording in the newspaper at the time and it is directly out of Ingrid Seward's book which Edward gave interviews for and allowed Sophie and his friends to contribute towards.
Edward retells it as a funny story - so it has been taken out of context. In the book he tells that only milestone birthdays are noted by the family so this one wasn't. It was just that he was invited for breakfast and his staff assumed that was the reason and were concerned when it wasn't. They informed the Queen's staff and he was shortly send a card. The meeting with the Queen was about other pressing issues, presumed at the time to be about the Wales marriage, but we will never know for certain. Either way her son's birthday was not on the Queen's mind at the time. What stuck with me most was that Edward's staff was not send a agenda for a meeting, which is why they assumed it was a personal affair.

Nope, Edward never refers to the Queen as anything other than the Queen - he was once asked about the seemingly cold relationship and said that God decided to bless him with a Queen instead of a mother, that is what he got and he has never had anything else to compare it against.

 

[Denville]

That's a bit pecular, she is a queen as well as a mother....

 

[SLV]

I don't think it THAT weird to not do something on the birthday-day. My daughter turned 6 last autumn-holiday. She had her party with her friends the week before and the birthday with family and presents a few days later. During the holidays she was staying with her grandparents. I didn't call on that day, she already had two birthdays.
When my girls were younger still, we often did nothing on their actual birthdays, because they would be during the week and the celebration was in the weekend. Especially for very young children, having such excitement 2-3 days in a row is taxing and confusing.

 

[Somebody]

Apparently, in Edward's experience even in their relationship she is very much first and foremost the queen (who happens to be his mother).

 

[Denville]

No its not.. and the RF probably wait till a conveneinet time for everyone.
And if Edward was an adult, and the meeting was to do with the Waleses marriage, I can understand the queen was probably not bothered about giving him a birthday card, when she had very pressing business to discuss. Doesn't mean she had forgotten but she was preoccupied iwht other things...

 

[Claire]

If you take away anything from the Seward boo it is that Edward really isn't phased by a lot of things that most people would have been.
Edward has been forgotten to be collected at school - the Duke of Edinburgh was going to do it , but decide last minute not to leaving the staff at the school and Edward security officer confused. The same security officer returned to Windsor with Edward to find the nursery gas and electricity still switch off, this would have never happened with the other children. Edward was asked if he was upset that he didn't spend as much time with the Queen Mother as his brothers did - he replied he didn't need to. When Edward asked to learn something about his maternal grandfather, the Queen got the nanny to take him on a history tour. Edward knows his position in the family. He is very much aware of it. The saddest story I know of was when Edward asked if he could get something of his grandfather's - it had been explained to him that the items were the property of the crown and couldn't be handed out. He was about ten at the time and someone cut off a button on one of the King George's uniforms and gave it to him. He gave the button to Sarah Chatto as she wanted something as well. Princess Margaret wrote him a thank you note.


It was this security officer that took Edward to the movies as a child and cultivate his interest in James Bond.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think it THAT weird to not do something on the birthday-day. My daughter turned 6 last autumn-holiday. She had her party with her friends the week before and the birthday with family and presents a few days later. During the holidays she was staying with her grandparents. I didn't call on that day, she already had two birthdays.
When my girls were younger still, we often did nothing on their actual birthdays, because they would be during the week and the celebration was in the weekend. Especially for very young children, having such excitement 2-3 days in a row is taxing and confusing.

In this case (adult) Edward had breakfast with his mother on his actual birthday and his birthday was not acknowledged at all. Would you not at least say happy birthday if you see your daughter on her birthday... (unless you want to hide that it is their birthday but that's hard when they are older - they will be aware)

 

[Somebody]

No its not.. and the RF probably wait till a conveneinet time for everyone.
And if Edward was an adult, and the meeting was to do with the Waleses marriage, I can understand the queen was probably not bothered about giving him a birthday card, when she had very pressing business to discuss. Doesn't mean she had forgotten but she was preoccupied iwht other things...

Well, if she didn't even say 'happy birthday', it is clear she had forgotten about it - why send a card and present otherwise after you have personally seen your son? - or she is a cruel person but I don't believe that to be the case. A somewhat neglectant mother at times more likely...

 

[eya]

Happy Mothers Day from the Palace :

"These photos show The Queen with each of her children. From left to right, with The Prince of Wales in 1950 at Clarence House, with The Princess Royal in Balmoral in 1955, The Duke Of York in 1960 also in Balmoral and holding Prince Edward in 1965 in Windsor"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2-RBt1XgAAAHnZ.jpg


And Prince Andrew posted a lovely old picture of him with his mother:

"In 1962, The Queen and Prince Andew enjoy a carriage ride around Windsor Castle."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2-Mh_mWsAI35Jb.jpg