"Prince, Son and Heir: Charles at 70" (2018) - BBC One Documentary


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
And there we have it, so let's go through what he said:

Prince Charles at 70: I won't be a meddling monarch, I'm not stupid - Sky News.
In the programme Prince Charles is asked how he sees the two roles as being different. The Prince says: "I've tried to make sure whatever I've done has been non party political.

"But I think it's vital to remember there's only room for one sovereign at a time, not two, so you can't be the same as the sovereign if you're the Prince of Wales or the heir.

"But the idea somehow that I'm going to go on in exactly the same way if I have to succeed is complete nonsense, because the two, the two situations are completely different.

"Clearly, I won't be able to do the same things I've done, you know, as heir so of course you operate within the constitutional parameters."

But when the interviewer suggests that some people are concerned his involvement will continue in the same way, Prince Charles becomes more animated, and replies in a direct way, saying: "No, it won't. I'm not that stupid, I do realise that it is a separate exercise being sovereign.

"So of course, you know I understand entirely how that should operate."

Prince Charles won't speak out when he becomes king - BBC News.
By Nicholas Witchell, BBC royal correspondent

He has spent his adult life trying, as he puts it, "to make a difference". Often that has led the Prince of Wales to speak out about topics about which he feels deeply: the environment, GM crops, inner cities, architecture, education, homeopathic medicine and others.

It has, on occasions, caused irritation within the government departments that have had to respond to his heartfelt "black spider" handwritten letters raising, always courteously but often insistently, some issue that has come to the prince's attention.

It has all given rise to a greater concern. Does Prince Charles fully appreciate that, when he succeeds his mother and becomes Britain's king, these interventions will have to stop?

Those who know him have said for years that privately he fully understands that, as king, he would have to stop his "campaigning".

Prince Charles himself has always baulked at saying as much publicly. He's said to feel that any reference to how he will function as monarch could be seen as being disrespectful to his mother.

However, with the Queen now in her 93rd year, and with Prince Charles about to celebrate his 70th birthday, he has finally said - publicly and explicitly - that he does recognise his interventions on matters of public debate will have to stop as soon as he becomes king.

--------------------

Although (as he himself says in this documentary) Charles has never been party-political, I have previously written in other threads: ''That if he continues with his current campaigning as King, he would be stupid, and he's not.''

Well, I was right, he's not stupid at all. - And as I've also mentioned before: As monarch, he will most likely go into the role that the Queen occupied from 1952 to 2012, when she traveled around the UK, Commonwealth and wider world with her unifying apolitical presence, her walkabouts (1970-2012), speeches, etc, whithout being ''political/meddling'' (call it what you want).
But if he were to succeed in his 80s, then he could go straight into the role she's occupying right now, which will mean: No foreign-travel, no walkabouts, about 70% of the engagements inside the palaces, while the younger members of the family does the other stuff.

And then to his people-skills: Yes, I wrote ''people-skills.'' - Because in foreign media (also here in Norway), he is often portrayed as ''this cold, stiff man who is not particularly good with people.'' Hmm, what??!!?? Perhaps they should take some time in watching the man when he's out and about, because the TRUTH is that he is as good as both his sons (if not even better), when it comes to walkabouts, listening to people, etc (and remember, this is a HUUUUGE ''Duke/Duchess of Cambridge-fan'' speaking).
Another thing that is COMPLETELY WRONG is that he, according to some reporters, has become ''better, easier and less tense with the crowds'' since he married Camilla. Well, perhaps these reporters should watch some clips from his walkabouts and meetings with the public in the 1970s/80s/90s and see for themselves, because he was just as easy-going and charming back then, as he is now.

--------------------

BTW: Here are some of yesterday's front pages:

The Telegraph.

The Mail.

The Express.
 
You can watch it on youtube...the link is posted in the thread...I did this morning, was very good.


LaRae

Oh great, thank you so much! I have a long weekend, so I know what I will be doing with some of it.....can't wait to see it!
 
What I don't understand about people that sees the Princes not mentioning their father when honoring their mother as a diss to him is this: do you expect them to mention and honor their mother when they are honoring their father?

No? Ok, then.

The fact of the matter is that Charles and Diana have long divorced. The boys can honor both parents. It's unlikely it'll ever be at the same time due to the amount of history that went down long before they came of age.

Just as a side note. Harry did make sure to mention 'mummy' in the interview as part of the documentary honouring his father.
 
I loved his 'I am not that stupid' remark.

It was also interesting how William stressed that he is his own man (he is clearly not aspiring his father's work ethic). And Charles also acknowledged that what he has done over his lifetime is just one way of fulfilling his role but he doesn't see it as a blueprint for future generations.
 
I watched the documentary last night and it was a wonderful and insightful programme - it was nice to hear interviews from William and Harry as well as others who are close to/know Charles. Before I became more interested in the RF I was never a big fan of Charles and Camilla, however after reading more about them I've grown to like them a lot and after HM and Philip they're my favourite British royal couple of the older generations. They seem like a lovely, down to earth pair and I agree that one can tell Charles is genuinely concerned about the welfare of the British public because he does all of his engagements and participates in all his charities because he wants to, not because he feels the need to due to his position.
 
Not enough coffee today and easily confuzzled. I'm moving a post here from the thread "Charles at Seventy Thoughts" which is based on Jobson's book and my post deals more with the documentary this thread is about. :D

It’s obvious that his sons love him very much (at least based on an article I read previewing the BBC special), but I can understand why Charles was hurt that William and Harry excluded him completely from that Diana special that aired a couple of years ago. I choose to think that kids can often be thoughtless, not thinking about their parents’ feelings. I’m also hoping that they, as they grow older, will eventually understand that their father did the best he could while raising them without their mother. Of course it reminds me that Charles himself struggled with his mother’s absence when he was a boy. I also hope that Charles’ relationship with his parents is solid now, and that father and son are on better terms. I’ll probably buy the book at some point – it’s nice to have what appears to be a balanced account of Charles’s life rather than the tawdry, ugly books that have been released in the last couple of years.

If I'm remembering right, when the boys did their remembrances for Diana's 20th anniversary of her death, Charles was at Birkhall during that time. Most likely he remembered Diana privately. There was no need to have him go public.

As Charles approaches 70, he's in a good place in both his public and private life. He's come into his own and just watching him, you no longer get the sense of negative emotions that were quite visible around him for some periods of his life. He's happy and it shows on his face wherever he goes. In fact, during the documentary, I remember looking at him and thinking "he has his mother's smile!" The kind of smile that reaches the eyes and makes the face light up.

He's accomplished so much during his time as Prince of Wales. So much that his son, William, has witnessed it, saw what his father was doing and it impressed on him ways that William would want to do the same but put his own mark on the way its done. An excellent example of parenting by example. The litter picking and the turning off of lights reminded me of growing up and to this day, if a light isn't needed, off it goes.

Those two boys grew up with knowing that if you're going to talk the talk, you also walk the walk. Both William and Harry grew up with parents that taught them to look outside of themselves and see around them where change is needed and impressed on them that they have been born into a situation where they can make a difference if they put their minds to it.

Yet, Charles is an "everyday" man that loves his private time talking to turkeys and digging and planting and is always on the go and thinking of different ways he can make a difference. He sets his mind to something and although it may drive people crazy at times, he wants results and gets them. This is a man that takes long walks to relax. No couch potato is Charles. As he does grow older, perhaps he will slow down a bit as his wife and kids want him to and just enjoy what's around him but Charles knows that his biggest role is yet to come. One thing I can be absolutely sure of is that Charles as King is going to be a king that will pour his heart and soul into the job and be sure to do the job properly as he is required to do. He has his sons to take up the banner of making a difference and fighting for change. He's taught them well.

The best is yet to come.
 
I have not heard or seen something new, which was not already known. But it was fascinating to see the interaction of the Prince with the public. Also the Duchess was so charming, I could see the symbiosis between the two. Looks like a fun couple. Charles and Camilla surely will make a fine royal couple...

The words in which Charles stressed he wanted to remain within the constitutional parameters are very much alike with what the Prince of Orange stated about his (then) coming kingship: "When something has gone through all proper constitutional and democratic processes, I will assent it. Always." (With this ruling out any "meddling" or follow an own agenda).

Yes indeed re your latter observation. Prince Charles was very adamant in expressing how he understands the difference between the role of King and titular head of state, versus the very lifelong role of Prince of Wales that he has had so many years to thoughtfully reflect upon and to forge his own identity upon in a proactive and productive way. It was cool when Prince Charles laughed and questioned the word, "meddling," with a twinkle in his eye. And then he said, "I like to think of it as 'motivating.'"

ITA as well that much of what we see in this documentary is not new. It's simply that many in the public and around the world have not been consciously aware of all of the wonderful projects and beneficial community-related activities Prince Charles has been involved in over the years. I've known about the good work of the Prince's Trust, and about Charles' sustainability practices and his amazing successes with the Duchy of Cornwall. I did not know as much about some of the other projects detailed in this documentary, such as the renovation of that old castle and efforts to rebuild the surrounding community.

I knew about Prince Charles having spoken out as a young man on social and progressive-minded issues. But he was generally always made fun of in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, e.g., for his views on modern architecture, the need for preservation, and his love for gardening. Those views and passionate interests are now very popular and more accepted but were fairly unpopular when Charles brought attention to them in his speeches and in his advocacy. I was not fully aware of Prince Charles having spoken out on climate change, pollution and waste crises, in 1970. I did know that as a young man, Charles had been taken under the wing of some wise older leaders in Britain and movers-and-shakers around the world. In the documentary, Charles credits some of them for helping him to see these issues from a responsible and thoughtful perspective. There was a movement for climate change in the 1970s and some of the earliest recognition and legislation was enacted during that decade, but it wasn't nearly enough. And then of course, the whole environmental awareness push faded away and was neglected as a result of poor leaders around the world being influenced by backers of corporate-profit-driven thinking harmful to the environment.

All-in-all, this documentary does an excellent job of allowing us to see Prince Charles' genuine caring personality, his warm sense of humor, and his active, productive approach to a high-profile role that is a difficult mantle to have been saddled with at such an early age when he was still learning and growing as a human being. No one is perfect, but he's come out on the other end at 70 years of age (after the scandalous drama of his first marriage), in strong fashion due to his own kind sensibilities, sense of duty, and caring for humanity. Prince Charles' personality has been seen as weak, but I think sometimes being caring and sensitive is often labeled as a weakness when in fact, there runs a core of deep strength and patience in Charles. Sure he was selfish and he lacked understanding toward his first wife, but that was largely because they were so unsuited and he had been browbeaten by some of his stiff-upper-lipped, old-fashioned elders into accepting that marrying the young, virginal Diana, was the right thing to do.

Charles has ultimately survived public unpopularity and misunderstanding, due to the solid support and love of Camilla, as well as the love and nurturing provided in his early years by his grandmother, the Queen Mother. And indeed, due to the current greater understanding, generosity and unspoken bond he shares with his mother, QEII. While Prince Philip has been a good father, I don't think he ever truly understood Charles' personality, and they have probably never been very close. Although Lord Louis Mountbatten was a strong figure in Charles' early upbringing, I wouldn't give power-driven and character-flawed Mountbatten as much credit for guiding Charles as I would some of the older leaders mentioned in the documentary. Charles also cultivated a number of friendships over the years with men much older than him who were progressive thinkers, e.g., Sir Laurens van der Post, who was named a godfather to Prince William.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurens_van_der_Post

I'm also not surprised about how Camilla's personality comes off. She's surely always been an engaging and warm person with a fun sense of humor. There's a recent positive documentary about Camilla that's available on Youtube, and worth checking out. Let's face it, the difficult love triangle did none of those in question any favors. But there should be an end put to the blaming and finger-pointing. There are reasons why things happened the way they did. It matters most now how everyone have moved forward. I believe Diana is at peace, and that she's very proud and happy for her sons. She and Charles, despite the hellish times, did share some happy moments together, and their two sons have proven to be a strong, viable and vastly important legacy for the future of the British monarchy. Charles and Diana were generally always on the same page regarding raising their sons. They are both very instrumental in how wonderful Harry and William have turned out, as indeed have been the two princes' paternal grandparents, and other mentors we don't know as much about.

Charles PofW has already led an influential and important life, and he will surely prove to be an important, transitional King of Great Britain & the Commonwealth in an age of uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoyed the documentary. I was struck by how involved in so much that Charles was. I wish his sons were as "stuck in" as it were in the lives of everyday Brits. I was also surprised by how loose security was around Charles. The Sussexes seemed to have a tighter security situation! I mean people were just rushing up to Charles and everything. I really liked it though because it seemed more approachable.

I thought the bits with Harry and Camilla were lovely. But I confess, I found William rather off-putting in this documentary.

I wish we could have heard from Charles' siblings as well...the bit were Charles tickled Anne while they were waiting for the CW Reception was just adorable!
 
:previous: We don't know about how the security detail around Prince Charles vetted the crowd in advance re his visit to the 'hurricane' locale. Prince Charles currently has a much more low-key profile and appeal worldwide than do his sons, but I'm sure his overseas visits are no less well-vetted. There probably isn't as huge crowds for Prince Charles as Harry & Meghan recently received on their South Pacific tour, and in their touring of communities around Great Britain. The places Charles and all of the royals visit are carefully chosen. Keep in mind too that this documentary is meant to show Charles in an appealing light, as his ascendancy to the throne creeps ever more closer. That does not mean he isn't being accurately portrayed, just that the documentary is meant to be positive and flattering.

I personally disagree with the negative attitudes toward Prince William, voiced by several posters. Obviously, William is much more reserved than both his father and his brother. However, if you are truly looking at William's expressions and his smile, and if you recall some instances of William growing up (e.g., the gap year documentary) when he was a bit more open and gregarious, you will notice that William is just as responsible, kind, thoughtful and caring as Harry and Prince Charles. William simply carries himself differently, and he seems to come off in his adult years, a bit more understated and boring. William is probably more open and demonstrative in private with his family and close relatives. Also, with Harry being so outgoing and more expressively like Diana, it makes William seem even more retiring and dull than he actually is, IMHO.

William simply has a more reserved and cautious personality. I think William was a bit more demonstrative and mischievous when he was younger (remember how Diana called Wills a terror when he was a toddler), but he was probably always somewhat less outgoing in his personality than Harry. Strangely enough though, I read an article recently that indicated Prince Harry was rather shy when he was very young and just starting out in school, but that he soon came out of his shell and became a natural leader in school activities, especially re athletic endeavors.

IMO, Prince William was certainly just as impacted as Harry was, by their mother's tragic death, but in a uniquely different way. William, of course, was older than Harry and thus the impact was different, but surely no less deeply impactful. I think what William experienced growing up and losing his mother as a teenager, has seemingly made him very wary and cautious about expressing his personality too openly. Add to that the heavy burden of kingly inheritance, and William's already natural reserve has been unavoidably heightened, particularly toward the media.

William has not fully spoken in-depth about the ways in which his mother's death affected him emotionally, but we can see some small inklings of how William was impacted, in last year's tribute documentary to Diana, and in the three-way conversation video that was shown between Kate, William, and Harry as they were promoting mental health and their 'Heads Together' initiative. Perhaps William has shared more of his inner emotions with his wife, and perhaps with his wife's Dad, Michael Middleton, whom (from comments William has made) William appears to deeply respect and admire. Perhaps William also over the years opened up to his mentors. We do know that it was William who encouraged Harry to seek grief counseling.

Probably William has mostly silently shouldered the burdens of being the older brother, and heir to the throne. I think those burdens of responsibility have made William's personality even more reserved than he already is, particularly in public. Let's not forget that William is still rather young, and that Prince Charles was also roundly publicly criticized when he was the age William is now. Let's allow both William and Harry the space to experience the unfolding of their lives and to come into their own more fully and individually, as their father has done.

William's hair loss probably also gives him the appearance of being an old fuddy-duddy with a stern, stuck-in-the-mud personality. But I can see the humor in William's eyes. I also detect William's deep and unfailing love for his brother, his father, and for his grandparents QEII and Pip. William also has an understated, very dry sense of humor that doesn't always come across. I recall William stating upon his brother's engagement announcement that, "I'll be glad if Harry will now stop raiding my refrigerator." ?
 
Last edited:
:previous: I don’t want to get into the debate about If William is off putting or not. But I just want to comment about Harry.

As much as people keep saying William is like Charles, who people claim to be more serious and less affectionate, and Harry being more like his mother in affectionate. I think we can say it’s not true. I actually see a lot of Prince Charles in Harry’s expressiveness. In fact, I always am struck by how similar Charles and Harry are when we see them together. They both like a good time, but are very passionate about certain things. I’m not sure if this was how PoW always was when he was younger, but I certainly see the similarities in personality now.
 
Last edited:
William and Harry both have personalities that reflect who they are and are totally different in demeanor but one thing is obvious and that is that they both reflect traits from the parents.

Its the differences that make them all stand out as the individuals that they are.
 
... I wish we could have heard from Charles' siblings as well...the bit were Charles tickled Anne while they were waiting for the CW Reception was just adorable!

I think the bit of humorous interactions that we saw from all of the royals behind-the-scenes of the Commonwealth event and at other moments in this documentary, are fun and insightful. We really didn't need to see a whole lot from Charles' siblings. I don't believe that Charles has been particularly close to any of his siblings over the years.

Charles and Anne likely have more of an intimate understanding as the oldest children of QEII & Pip, plus they are closer in age too. Prince Charles and Prince Andrew reportedly are known to not get along well. And I think Prince Edward being the youngest child, also led to him and Charles necessarily not having a particularly close relationship over the years. Charles was the young 'action man prince' experiencing his young adult adventures while Edward was still growing up.

The 'royal firm' are simply a larger-than-life family who are on a huge public and historic, soap-operatic stage. That surely requires them to have the capacity for humor, and self-deprecation. The current British royals, I believe, have always generally been known to have high-spirited fun with each other, as passed down via the Queen Mother's fun-loving upbringing in Scotland with her large family.

I loved his 'I am not that stupid' remark.

It was also interesting how William stressed that he is his own man (he is clearly not aspiring his father's work ethic). And Charles also acknowledged that what he has done over his lifetime is just one way of fulfilling his role but he doesn't see it as a blueprint for future generations.

Yes, very true. And it does make sense that they are and will be different, as the Queen has been different, as she has slowly matured and evolved over the course of her reign with the changing times.

I don't think we as the public fully realize just how 'not stupid' the British royal family are, and have been for the most part over the course of history, but particularly in the current modern age.

The British royals appear to be in a good place right now and are enjoying increased worldwide attention and popularity as the younger generation come to the fore. That's in thanks no small part to the hard times the 'royal firm' has endured which has led to greater understanding, however tragic, public and painful. It's all credit due to the royal family how they have responded to the challenges they have faced, individually and collectively. The loving marriages of William and Harry have played a significant role in this current feeling of renewal, happy relationships, and future promise.


... As Charles approaches 70, he's in a good place in both his public and private life. He's come into his own and just watching him, you no longer get the sense of negative emotions that were quite visible around him for some periods of his life. He's happy and it shows on his face wherever he goes. ...

Those two boys grew up with knowing that if you're going to talk the talk, you also walk the walk. Both William and Harry grew up with parents that taught them to look outside of themselves and see around them where change is needed ... Yet, Charles is an "everyday" man that loves his private time talking to turkeys and digging and planting and is always on the go and thinking of different ways he can make a difference. He sets his mind to something and although it may drive people crazy at times, he wants results and gets them. This is a man that takes long walks to relax... As he does grow older, perhaps he will slow down a bit as his wife and kids want him to and just enjoy what's around him but Charles knows that his biggest role is yet to come... He has his sons to take up the banner of making a difference and fighting for change. He's taught them well.

The best is yet to come.

Thanks for sharing that post from the Jobson bio thread @Osipi. I agree with your observations. This new documentary has revealed more to me about how active and productive Charles is. Even though I did know about Charles' many projects and accomplishments, I learned a lot more in detail, which is enlightening and uplifting.

What we've usually heard more about re Charles, is his penchant for having a large staff and the best care re his style of living. I actually think there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of living a luxurious lifestyle. That's the way Charles was raised. Princess Anne is said to have once jokingly given Prince Charles the gift of a portable, fur-covered toilet seat. :lol: Charles is clearly also frugal and practical in certain important respects pertaining to upkeep of the palaces, royal duty expenses, turning out lights, and cleaning up litter as part of our duty to the environment. ?

IMO, a characteristic that is harder to develop and to embody every day is indeed what Prince Charles has in spades: an enormous sense of duty and responsibility. He clearly deeply cares about people and the dangers that are impacting humanity in these cautionary times.

As I've always said, and what has always been apparent is that William and Harry are the best things that came out of the marriage between Charles & Diana. "God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform."
 
Last edited:
:previous: I don’t want to get into the debate about If William is off putting or not. But I just want to comment about Harry.

As much as people keep saying William is like Charles, who people claim to be more serious and less affectionate, and Harry being more like his mother in affectionate. I think we can say it’s not true. I actually see a lot of Prince Charles in Harry’s expressiveness. In fact, I always am struck by how similar Charles and Harry are when we see them together. They both like a good time, but are very passionate about certain things. I’m not sure if this was how PoW always was when he was younger, but I certainly see the similarities in personality now.


There was one point in the documentary where Harry made a expression with his face and it was total Diana. Really struck me because typically William is more like his mother in his looks and some of his mannerisms/expressions.

Harry is more like Charles and perhaps even Prince Phillip (at least in looks and probably cheekiness!).

LaRae
 
To be clear, I’m not saying Harry is NOT like his mom, but I’m just saying I wouldn’t be so quick to say he’s like Diana and not Charles in being affectionate. In fact, with all the PDA with Meghan, people has always said he’s affectionate because he’s like his mother. But reality is that PoW is also very affectionate with Camilla. They even kissed goodbye in Ireland as they left separately to go to different engagements after a joint engagement. People aren’t really interested, so it doesn’t get reported, but PoW and Camilla are actually quite affectionate and warm.

While I do see Diana in Harry, I see Charles in him too.
 
:previous: I don’t want to get into the debate about If William is off putting or not. But I just want to comment about Harry.

As much as people keep saying William is like Charles, who people claim to be more serious and less affectionate, and Harry being more like his mother in affectionate. I think we can say it’s not true. I actually see a lot of Prince Charles in Harry’s expressiveness. In fact, I always am struck by how similar Charles and Harry are when we see them together. They both like a good time, but are very passionate about certain things. I’m not sure if this was how PoW always was when he was younger, but I certainly see the similarities in personality now.

It's a mix of traits and expressions they both have from both of their parents, I'm sure. ? Most of all, they each received deep love and understanding from both of their parents, despite their parents' human flaws, and the unavoidable, painful struggles of dealing with their parents' divorce, and later with the tragic loss of their mother.

I still feel that Prince William physically resembles his mother the most, and that Prince Harry has his mother's rebellious, fun-loving, empathetic personality. That doesn't mean they don't each share a mix of traits from both parents that make each of them uniquely who they are as individuals.
___________________________

The part of the documentary where Harry and William are reflecting about their Dad's influence on them, which they weren't fully aware of growing up, is typical of families in general. How many of us reach a certain age, and suddenly recognize the importance of lessons we learned from our parents, which we discounted or didn't fully understand as youngsters?

I do think, as is normal, that both William and Harry are growing to understand their father better as they are maturing and raising young children themselves (Harry soon-to-be). In fact, despite William and Harry truly loving and respecting their father, they may have had periods of not always getting along with him in some instances, unsurprisingly. Apparently, they are all three being brought closer together in understanding, which may have been steadily occurring over the past couple of years, as it seems to be depicted in the documentary.

I have seen it mentioned in several articles over the past year, that Meghan has had some influence in pointing out to Harry that he should appreciate his father more. Now, we don't know exactly in what capacity or detail or exact phrasing that may have occurred. The below article states that Prince Charles and Meghan had an instant rapport, and that they have grown even closer since the royal wedding in May. The article indicates that Prince Charles feels Meghan has been the best thing to have happened to Harry, and that Charles has given Meghan the nickname: 'Tungsten,' for her toughness and her unbending nature.

It's worth pointing out I think that Meghan is a Leo, born on the same day as the Queen Mother, who was an important, nurturing influence on Charles. It's possible that Charles sees some of the same strong character traits in Meghan that he witnessed first-hand in his grandmother. It's also so lovely how supportive and understanding Charles has been toward Harry, Meghan, and Meghan's mother, Doria, especially around the time of the royal wedding. It's not a small thing that Prince Charles recommended the Kingdom Choir, and that he chose all of the gorgeous music selections (except for Stand By Me, which was chosen by Meghan & Harry).

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1015511/meghan-markle-prince-harry-prince-charles-royal-wedding

The new Vanity Fair profile of Prince Charles includes photos of Charles & Camilla, taken by M&H's engagement & wedding photographer, Alex Lubomirski (who was recommended to Charles by Duchess Meghan):

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018110164104/prince-charles-advice-from-meghan-markle/
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I’m not saying Harry is NOT like his mom, but I’m just saying I wouldn’t be so quick to say he’s like Diana and not Charles in being affectionate. In fact, with all the PDA with Meghan, people has always said he’s affectionate because he’s like his mother. But reality is that PoW is also very affectionate with Camilla. They even kissed goodbye in Ireland as they left separately to go to different engagements after a joint engagement. People aren’t really interested, so it doesn’t get reported, but PoW and Camilla are actually quite affectionate and warm...

Yes, I think as I said earlier, there's a mix of traits offspring inherit from their parents, which is normal for every family. I haven't seen anyone say that Harry doesn't have some of his father's traits, simply because he takes a lot after his mother's personality in some obvious respects.

It definitely comes across how much in love Camilla and Prince Charles are and have always been, but I do not think any member of the royal family have been as demonstrably affectionate in public to the extent that Harry & Meghan have been. It's probably due in no small part to Meghan's naturally affectionate nature, which is also truthfully how Harry's personality is too, in part because of his mother's openly demonstrative displays of affection. Clearly Prince Charles has also been quite understanding, supportive and loving toward his sons, no question. But fathers and mothers are always uniquely different. Each individual brings something different to every relationship.

I think that Charles was especially understanding in raising his sons to chart their own paths, partly as a result of his not wanting to be overly aggressive and forceful in their upbringing, as his father had been toward him. Thank God for Prince Charles breaking that particular strict, overbearing and harsh royal tradition that had tended to be passed down ever since the dynamic between Queen Victoria and her eldest son, King Edward VII, led to tough relationships between fathers and sons in the British royal family. Albeit that Prince Philip was never as overbearing toward his children as King Edward VII and King George V were. However, Philip simply did not understand nor seem to appreciate Charles' more sensitive nature.
 
Last edited:
What struck me was how much the Prince looked like his great-uncle Edward, The Duke of Windsor, at similar age.
 
:previous: Well, family resemblances are normal, although I don't think there's too much of a resemblance between Prince Charles and the Duke of Windsor. In old age, there may be somewhat of certain facial features and mannerisms they might share. I have been said to share similar mannerisms and some physical resemblance to a maternal aunt whom I unfortunately never got around to meeting because she lived in a different state.
_____________________________

I got a laugh out of some of the conversation between Prince Charles and QEII, as they were waiting to enter the Commonwealth gathering. Prince Charles mentioned something to the Queen about Frogmore House, and she replied that she hadn't been to Frogmore 'in ages.' Of course, it's only a mile away from Windsor Castle, but the Queen leads a busy existence, in addition to the fact she's slowing down and is not as physically active.

The scene @34:01 in the documentary, is very striking and poignant in which the Queen and Pip are standing on the balcony as Prince Charles lays the Remembrance Day wreath, flanked by Princes William and Harry in their military uniforms. Notably, the wreath is handed to Prince Charles by the Queen's equerry, Ghanian-born Major Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah. The poignant feeling is further heightened by the narrator's voiceover:
"This November, as last, The Prince of Wales will take the Queen's place at the Cenotaph... This scene more than any other with [Prince Charles giving] the serviceman's salute [and his sons standing tall behind him] reveals what the next reign will look like..."

The recent burgeoning popular interest in the British royal family is in part due, I think, to the diversity and inclusivity signalled by Meghan joining the firm. There has also been increasingly visible signs of diversity and inclusion among the British royal staff, particularly with Major Nana's high-level appointment. The younger royals, led by William and Harry, coming to the fore in a positive, up-to-date way, accompanied by talented young staff members, has also been refreshing and advantageous.
 
Last edited:
Osipi, thanks for moving my post; I wasn’t aware that this thread existed when I made those comments!

I haven’t had the chance to watch the video yet, so I can only judge by the quotes I’ve read, but William seems fine to me - and I love that he would love his father to have some more down time to spend with his own kids. I do remember that he was a mischievous little boy, but I assume that as he grew up, he probably was taught (given that he was the heir) to be less rambunctious, more reserved in public. He had to grow up quickly, even before his mother’s death, because he was going to eventually be King; then afterwards, I’m sure he also felt protective of Harry and maybe even a bit responsible towards him (as the older brother).

I love that Charles did the opposite of what his father did “for” him. He gave his boys the freedom to develop into the men that they wanted to be instead of trying to force them into being who he wanted them to be. William is a great father, and that’s in large part because he had a wonderful role model in his own. I’m sure Charles wishes he could have been there more for his boys while they were growing up, but his own example of being a parent was his mother being absent so often due to work responsibilities. That didn’t make it any easier for William and Harry, but I think they will understand it more as time goes by.
 
I have a favour to ask: Please stop calling William and Harry "the boys"...as I read not only in this thread! These two are married men in their thierties, they have been at the time of their mother´s 20th anniversary of her death already, and William is a family father of three with Prince Harry soon catching up with him...
 
Last edited:
Now that I think about it, you've made a good point. They're definitely not boys anymore but full grown men. I'm going to keep that in mind for future posts. ?
 
We witnessed William and Harry as infants being brought out of the hospital by their parents. We've watched them grow up from a distance. Yes, they are no longer boys, but the memories of their youth are still fresh in our minds. Of course they are no longer boys, but those of us who are much older than them, still see them as young, despite the fact they are grown-ups in their 30s. Young people in their 30s actually still have a lot of maturing to do. When/if you reach your late 40s and your 50s and 60s, you discover that truth. :D

This discussion reminds me of the moment when I realized after interacting with my brother in his late 30s, after I had lived in a different state for many years (when he was growing up in his teens and his twenties), that he was in fact no longer the 'little brother' I remembered and that I was still holding onto in my mind.

It shouldn't be a problem when reminiscing about the childhoods of Prince William and Prince Harry, to reference them in respect to when they were toddlers and little boys. ;)

As I recall hearing reported, Prince Charles did just that in his wedding reception reflections about his 'dear old boy' Harry.
 
Last edited:
Delete - duplicate.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I don’t see the big deal in occasionally referring to William and Harry as Charles’ boys or the “boys”. We all know they’re men, that they are adults, and referring to them occasionally as “his boys” is hardly a cardinal sin. Also, not only is it just easier sometimes to refer to them that way (instead of always saying William and Harry), but it’s another way of calling them Charles’ sons. If we referred to them as boys, as if they were children, that would be another story, but clearly that’s not the case.
 
Of couse it is not a big deal.... Most women refer to "going out with the girls" or girlfirends… or men refer to a night out with the boys... Its not a big deal at all
 
"Boys" in itself is not a big deal, but for some people it seems (not necessarily on these forums) that time stopped in 1997 with the death of Diana. If "Boys" is used in that context i reagularly feel that people want to freeze time...

just my 2cts ofcourse
 
Of couse it is not a big deal.... Most women refer to "going out with the girls" or girlfirends… or men refer to a night out with the boys... Its not a big deal at all

Exactly. You really need to see the context in which something is said in order to determine whether a statement is demeaning, etc. In French, it’s considered rude to call a waiter “garçon”, which means “boy” - because of course that waiter is not a boy, but a man. If people referred to William and Harry as boys in the sense that they aren’t adults, and talked about them as if they were babies, then I agree that would be wrong. I’ve never seen anything like that here, though (I know I haven’t posted much, but I mostly browse).

Lee-Z, I agree...but like you said, that’s not been a problem here.
 
And here I thought it was just me and used the wrong terminology. Then again, my eldest "boy" is a grandfather. What do I know? :D
 
For Charles, William and Harry will always be his dearest boys, even when he will be in his father's current age and they both over sixty.

Wow, congratualtions, Osipi! Not everyone is so lucky to meet their great-grandchild!
 
Exactly. You really need to see the context in which something is said in order to determine whether a statement is demeaning, etc. In French, it’s considered rude to call a waiter “garçon”, which means “boy” - because of course that waiter is not a boy, but a man. If people referred to William and Harry as boys in the sense that they aren’t adults, and talked about them as if they were babies, then I agree that would be wrong. I’ve never seen anything like that here, though (I know I haven’t posted much, but I mostly browse).

Lee-Z, I agree...but like you said, that’s not been a problem here.

Who is going to talk of them as if they were babies??????/
 
Back
Top Bottom