Relationships between Members of the British Royal Family

[Betsypaige]

When Sarah joined the Royal family she and Diana, who had known each other before, became close for several years sharing together their not always favorable impressions of Palace life and courtiers.

However, from everything I have read Charles and Andrew were never close at any point of their lives really. Eleven years age difference, very different temperaments, different interests, different stages of life, different positions in the Royal family, in some ways a different upbringing, as Andrew was more indulged as a child by his parents who had a bit more time for him. Charles was mainly brought up by Nannies Lightbody and Anderson until he went to school.

By the time Andrew was conscious of his surroundings Charles was away at Gordonstoun, and Timbertops in Australia. He was a university student when Andrew was at prep school. And, as I've said, nothing in their characters or interests have brought them close since, apart of course from being from the same parents and sharing some family memories. That's not to say that they aren't civil/cordial to each other most of the time when they meet of course, however, because of the giant age gap etc I wouldn't say that Charles was close to either Andrew or Edward.

This is what I’ve heard, as well.... Siblings can love each other and not be close.....I do love that Charles created a story for Andrew and Edward; that’s very sweet and loving.

 

[muriel]

When Sarah joined the Royal family she and Diana, who had known each other before, became close for several years sharing together their not always favorable impressions of Palace life and courtiers.

However, from everything I have read Charles and Andrew were never close at any point of their lives really. Eleven years age difference, very different temperaments, different interests, different stages of life, different positions in the Royal family, in some ways a different upbringing, as Andrew was more indulged as a child by his parents who had a bit more time for him. Charles was mainly brought up by Nannies Lightbody and Anderson until he went to school.

By the time Andrew was conscious of his surroundings Charles was away at Gordonstoun, and Timbertops in Australia. He was a university student when Andrew was at prep school. And, as I've said, nothing in their characters or interests have brought them close since, apart of course from being from the same parents and sharing some family memories. That's not to say that they aren't civil/cordial to each other most of the time when they meet of course, however, because of the giant age gap etc I wouldn't say that Charles was close to either Andrew or Edward.

I tend to agree with you. Growing up, Charles and Andrew were very far apart in age, and subsequently, had very diiferent paths. I am sure there is familial love, but I doubt there is much friendship there in the way Charles and Anne will be close.

 

[Denville]

This is what I’ve heard, as well.... Siblings can love each other and not be close.....I do love that Charles created a story for Andrew and Edward; that’s very sweet and loving.

that was when they were children and he was a much older brother...I'D Imagined he was almost like an uncle to them then.
I think that in the 1980s, Andrew was old enough to do royal duties and was in the Navy.. and so he and Charles had a bit in common while Edward was still at University... Charles had been in the Navy, and was now a full time working royal. Diana and Fergie were close in age and had been good friends before Fergie married Andrew, so it was natural that for a time, they might spend time together but I think it was more the wives being good friends.
I think that over time there was a rivalry and it developed between Di and Fergie as well as Andrew and Charles.. The Yorks were reasonably popular iwth the public... for a short time.. but they were much less rich than the Waleses and I think that they both became resentful of their secondary position... and began to try and make money in dubious ways. Diana and Sarah also had an off and on rivalry as "princesses who were loved by the public". Sarah got more press criticism and Diana was the Teflon Princess...

 

[Claire]

Actually when referring to his distance to Edward, Charles replied that he was almost a second father. I will find the video (it is on Youtube) But I don't think that it was in a reality. Edward was sent to be with Anne up at Gatcombe when his parents were away and weekends when possible, especially when he was at Gordonstoun. Andrew went to the Queen Mother. Never understood why the two were split up. Neither went to Charles. Although I expect that Charles would have been more then likely at the Queen Mother.
Edward is very close to the Princess Royal. Prince Andrew isnt really close to any of his siblings.

 

[AC21091968]

Actually when referring to his distance to Edward, Charles replied that he was almost a second father. I will find the video (it is on Youtube) But I don't think that it was in a reality. Edward was sent to be with Anne up at Gatcombe when his parents were away and weekends when possible, especially when he was at Gordonstoun. Andrew went to the Queen Mother. Never understood why the two were split up. Neither went to Charles. Although I expect that Charles would have been more then likely at the Queen Mother.
Edward is very close to the Princess Royal. Prince Andrew isnt really close to any of his siblings.

Interesting post, especially on Edward's relationship with Anne, as well as Andrew's relationship with his sibling. I would also like to point out that Andrew is also godfather to Harry and Zara. Of course things could have changed since the 1980s when Andrew may have been closer to his siblings or when there are more possibilities of having the parent's sibling as the newborn baby's godparent, compared to now.

I'm not quite sure about Andrew's relationship with his nephews and nieces. Judging by some pictures, Beatrice and Eugenie are close to their paternal cousins. In terms of the York Princess's relationship with their paternal aunt and uncles, I think they are closer to Edward.

 

[Denville]

I think that Andrew's scandals and his louche way of life have probably impinged on his having close relationships with his siblings..
I doubt if Charles was a "father" to the younger boys but I think he was a good and affectionate older brother when they were kids. Then as he grew up and went away to the Navy and so on, they were still very young and at school or univeristy... I think that Andrews bumptious personality probalby grated on Charles, and apart from a few years while he was newly married, they weren't all that close.

 

[Betsypaige]

that was when they were children and he was a much older brother...I'D Imagined he was almost like an uncle to them then.
I think that in the 1980s, Andrew was old enough to do royal duties and was in the Navy.. and so he and Charles had a bit in common while Edward was still at University... Charles had been in the Navy, and was now a full time working royal. Diana and Fergie were close in age and had been good friends before Fergie married Andrew, so it was natural that for a time, they might spend time together but I think it was more the wives being good friends.
I think that over time there was a rivalry and it developed between Di and Fergie as well as Andrew and Charles.. The Yorks were reasonably popular iwth the public... for a short time.. but they were much less rich than the Waleses and I think that they both became resentful of their secondary position... and began to try and make money in dubious ways. Diana and Sarah also had an off and on rivalry as "princesses who were loved by the public". Sarah got more press criticism and Diana was the Teflon Princess...

Of course it was when Andrew and Edward were children..

Your post makes sense...

General comment - It feels like the rivalry developed because Andrew was jealous of his older brother, the future King, though I wonder if Charles was envious of the attention Andrew got from their mother. I don’t think that latter is the case with Edward, though, so there has to be more than that.

I’ve read that Charles and Edward have a good relationship. It doesn’t mean they are especially close, but I wouldn’t expect that with such a huge age difference.

 

[Denville]

Of course it was when Andrew and Edward were children..

Your post makes sense...

General comment - It feels like the rivalry developed because Andrew was jealous of his older brother, the future King, though I wonder if Charles was envious of the attention Andrew got from their mother. I don’t think that latter is the case with Edward, though, so there has to be more than that.

I’ve read that Charles and Edward have a good relationship. It doesn’t mean they are especially close, but I wouldn’t expect that with such a huge age difference.

I think that while Andrew was never an angel, the break up of his marriage didn't improve his character. I think he was hurt by Sarah's leaving him.. and he never seems to have had a serious relationship that might end in marriage - perhaps he's never felt able to have a real love affair or trust anyone...but he's remained loyal to her. However that's not good because Sarah always wanted money and I think that by keeping up a close relationship with her, he got dragged into a need to make more and more money in dubious ways. so i feel that as he's grown older he's envious of Charles for being POW, and having a lot more money than he has, even if he's Mum's favourite child. And again that feeling of resentment has made him more unpleasant....
Wiht Edward I think becuase he's so much younger, he hasn't palled up with anyone especially- and there's not the same resentment and tension between him and his older brohter as there is with Andrew....

 

[Betsypaige]

I think that while Andrew was never an angel, the break up of his marriage didn't improve his character. I think he was hurt by Sarah's leaving him.. and he never seems to have had a serious relationship that might end in marriage - perhaps he's never felt able to have a real love affair or trust anyone...but he's remained loyal to her. However that's not good because Sarah always wanted money and I think that by keeping up a close relationship with her, he got dragged into a need to make more and more money in dubious ways. so i feel that as he's grown older he's envious of Charles for being POW, and having a lot more money than he has, even if he's Mum's favourite child. And again that feeling of resentment has made him more unpleasant....
Wiht Edward I think becuase he's so much younger, he hasn't palled up with anyone especially- and there's not the same resentment and tension between him and his older brohter as there is with Andrew....

Could be - that’s interesting, and it makes sense.

 

[Winnie]

Plus, I truly believe that Edward has Sophie who seems to be well liked and a rather calming way of just getting on with her responsibilities without a lot of fanfare. Edward seems to really adore her and together neither seem to be a threat in any way to the rest of the royals. I remember watching a video years ago when Sophie was so very ill after giving birth to their first child and Edward mentioning Anne being in constant contact thru it all. Just a few off the cuff words but you could tell he seemed close and had soft feelings for his sister. Gave me a much warmer side to Anne who usually doesn't project that part of herself in public. But now that someone mentioned that Edward stayed with his sister while his parents were gone for weeks on official business, I can see how that bond was strongly formed. Nice

 

[miss whirley]

I think that while Andrew was never an angel, the break up of his marriage didn't improve his character. I think he was hurt by Sarah's leaving him.. and he never seems to have had a serious relationship that might end in marriage - perhaps he's never felt able to have a real love affair or trust anyone...but he's remained loyal to her. However that's not good because Sarah always wanted money and I think that by keeping up a close relationship with her, he got dragged into a need to make more and more money in dubious ways. so i feel that as he's grown older he's envious of Charles for being POW, and having a lot more money than he has, even if he's Mum's favourite child. And again that feeling of resentment has made him more unpleasant....
Wiht Edward I think becuase he's so much younger, he hasn't palled up with anyone especially- and there's not the same resentment and tension between him and his older brohter as there is with Andrew....

Well he did propose to Amanda Staveley in 2003, though she didn't accept. I don't think his coparenting with Sarah drove him down the rabbit hole, she was dating other wealthy businessmen at the time. I think it was more retiring from the Navy. Once in the trade ambassador role he was traveling all over, meeting shady business people, he was witnessing the billionaire jetset lifestyle and he wanted a piece of that pie for himself. Couple that with William and Harry getting older and becoming the new adults after Charles, and making Andrew more insignificant at home, well he got increasingly reckless and self-serving. Really, it's the same story of present day Harry in many ways.

 

[Claire]

I think Edward was simply lucky with companions as a child - he is very close to Sarah Chatto and Helen Taylor, whom he refers to as sisters. Same with James Ogilvy whom is an adopted brother. Edward is also very close to the Mountbatten counsins - Ivor, Timothy and David and Nicholas before he passed.
Edward was raised in a packed nursey and has a ready made group of friends and family. I think Andrew was just a bit too old to fit into the group.

 

[Denville]

Well he did propose to Amanda Staveley in 2003, though she didn't accept. I don't think his coparenting with Sarah drove him down the rabbit hole, she was dating other wealthy businessmen at the time. I think it was more retiring from the Navy. Once in the trade ambassador role he was traveling all over, meeting shady business people, he was witnessing the billionaire jetset lifestyle and he wanted a piece of that pie for himself. Couple that with William and Harry getting older and becoming the new adults after Charles, and making Andrew more insignificant at home, well he got increasingly reckless and self-serving. Really, it's the same story of present day Harry in many ways.

I think it was both. Sarah dated other men and he dated women.. but they seemed to be unable to move on really.. she would have probably married some other man but I suspect noone rich offered. And Andrew did meet a lot odf dodgy people and got more resentful that he was comparatively poor, that he had an ex wife who was careless with money and to whom he was still loyal... and that he knew when Will got married he was going to slide further down the line of succession....

 

[Betsypaige]

I’m so happy about this ..it’s not surprising that William and Harry would reconnect over first their father having COVID and now this re: their mother. This seems to go hand-in-hand with the earlier info I posted about how relations between Harry, Meghan and the BRF in general are much improved.

The insider notes, however, that there is a “silver lining” amid the investigation into journalist Martin Bashir’s alleged unethical tactics used to land the interview with the late princess in the 1990s.

“The investigation has had a positive effect on William and Harry’s relationship,” the source explains. “They’ve bonded over it and are speaking more frequently on Zoom and WhatsApp. William has come to terms with the reasons behind Harry’s decision to leave the royal family and is happy to see his brother so settled, and Harry’s come to the realization that he no longer wants a dark cloud hanging over his head.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...-answers-about-dianas-panorama-interview/amp/

 

[TLLK]

Here is Robert Lacey's interview with Elle magazine in which he discusses what he believes is the current state of the relationship between the Wales brothers.


https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a35104745/prince-harry-william-feud-robert-lacey-interview/

 

[Prinsara]

I don't think he says very much at all.

 

[TLLK]

He rehashes what he's serialized earlier this year when he was promoting his book. However I did discover that his original idea was to cover the relationship between Charles and Andrew.

What compelled you to write this book?

I had been starting work on a book about Charles and Andrew and the previous generation, and the stresses and strains of Charles having a younger brother who was his mother’s favorite. At that stage, things were just coming to a head with the Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and a friend said that they’re not princes that matter anymore, and the princes that matter are William and Harry. They’re the ones you should be looking at.

 

[Prinsara]

I think the original idea would have been better. Sure, Wills and Harry are the current event and sell more, but nobody knows much about Charles and Andrew except that they aren't terrifically keen on one another, and there must be far more content there.

 

[Betsypaige]

He rehashes what he's serialized earlier this year when he was promoting his book. However I did discover that his original idea was to cover the relationship between Charles and Andrew.

Don't be upset, but I refuse to read anything that Robert Lacey says anymore...

Yes, I did post about his Andrew/Charles idea in thread about his book. Here's my original post. Interesting how Lacey says "a friend" and not Peter Morgan, lol.

Personally I’m glad Lacey changed his mind because it’s clear every time he’s interviewed that he loathes Charles, but...I loathe this comment because it’s completely disrespectful to Charles. I understand what be means, but Morgan is essentially erasing everything that the PoW has done. The idea that Lacey could be swayed, when presumably - like most authors - he put a lot of thought into the subject of his next book, shows his utter lack of conviction. In fact, he'd already STARTED the book. I can't stand him.

The royal author had originally planned to write about Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, but he dropped that plan after talking to The Crown creator Peter Morgan, who advised: "They aren’t the princes that matter any more.”

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/cel...wn-consultant/

 

[TLLK]

Don't be upset, but I refuse to read anything that Robert Lacey says anymore..

This is my upset face. LOL



It's a shame that Charles is referred to as a "Prince that doesn't matter anymore."

 

[Betsypaige]

This is my upset face. LOL



It's a shame that Charles is referred to as a "Prince that doesn't matter anymore."

It’s pathetic, but I don’t take these comments seriously as it’s clear that Lacey and Morgan have their own agendas. Still, it is sad that they both ignore all the good that Charles has done...They might do well to remember that he, not a William, is the next monarch....no matter how hard they wish it were otherwise.

 

[AC21091968]

Robert Lacey also spoke to People Magazine on Harry & Meghan's relationship with the Royal Family. The article itself is basically summarising what happened to Harry & Meghan in 2020 and including sources close to the couple.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Changed the Royal Family Forever: 'They Don’t Regret Their Move'
"Meghan and Harry took a huge leap of faith to embark on their new life," a source close to the couple tells PEOPLE in this week's cover story
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-changed-royal-family-dont-regret-move/

Here are some parts of the article that mentioned Robert Lacey and "insider sources":

One year ago, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry announced their decision to step away from royal duty — a departure that would change the royal family forever.

"Meghan and Harry took a huge leap of faith to embark on their new life," a source close to the couple tells PEOPLE in this week's cover story.

It was a leap that would reshape not just the royal family but the monarchy too.

Harry, 36, who long felt marginalized by the role of "spare" in the line of succession—an issue that has plagued generations of royal siblings, including Queen Elizabeth’s sister, Princess Margaret — "finally found a solution," says royal historian Robert Lacey, "which is essentially to get out and start a new life. To stay in the royal system is to go along with subservience to those more senior than you. He has asserted his own identity."

This "progressive new role," as the couple described it in their previous statement outlining the change — including earning their own income — offered a fresh start. "It was always their dream to be financially independent and pay their own way," says the source close to the couple. With that dream finally realized, "The year started out with a lot of excitement and anticipation," says a source close to the prince. "Harry was finally doing what he’d wanted to do for years, and to have Meghan and [19-month-old son] Archie with him was all he could have asked for."

"Despite everything that has been going on this year, they don’t regret their move to the U.S.," says an insider. "They love that they are able to focus on projects and causes that are important to them."

To put it bluntly, I found Robert Lacey's interview very distasteful and disgusting. ? I think it's a big slap at the working royals not just The Queen, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge, but also those not in the direct line of succession (Princess Royal, Earl of Wessex, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra). To imply that they "go along with subservience" by serving the country and supporting The Queen (as working royals) showed that Robert Lacey denigrate the Royal Family and role of constitutional monarchy. Even worse, Robert Lacey assumes that the senior working royals not in the direct line of succession "feel inferior" to those in seniority. It just absurd to suggest that they are "marginalised" and not close to other members of the Royal Family.

 

[Osipi]

What I found distasteful about the entire thing is the implication that by Harry and Meghan sailing off to life in the Golden State that they have drastically changed the face of the British Royal Family forever more and probably a day after that.

That is absurd. The British Royal Family wasn't diminished by the light going out that illuminated them all the by sunrays shining off of Harry's ginger hair. The "Firm" continued on doing what it does best by supporting the British people even in the time of a pandemic. From where I sit, it looked like Harry and Meghan and the "Sussex brand" was hardly missed at all.

Sheesh... talk about an exaggeration!!

 

[Denville]

Indeed. I think that people in thre UK have more to think about than Harry moving away.. now. HE and Meg showed where their hearts were tending when they headed straight for LA when the borders were closing...

 

[Hallo girl]

Indeed. I think that people in thre UK have more to think about than Harry moving away.. now. HE and Meg showed where their hearts were tending when they headed straight for LA when the borders were closing...

Exactly, nobody is really caring, they raised the legal cases which is in effect keeping them in the news but other than that nobody would actually give them a second thought.

The royal family have managed without them, I am not saying they are not missing them as family members, but they have all stood up and got on with their work.

good luck to them in their new life, but people move on,

 

[Curryong]

First of all, Robert Lacey is not an official spokesman for Harry and Meghan though he is a respected historian, author and biographer.

In spite of objections to the term here, monarchy by its very nature is an hierarchical system, which means that all British royals serve the Queen as sovereign and are therefore indeed subservient to her.

It might be too, that Lacey may be looking at the bigger picture in the future. That is a future in which spares could well not be pressed or feel obligated to serve the monarchy all their lives but may be free to choose their own path through life.

After all, we don't know if someone like Princess Margaret, had she received an adequate education might not have been happier making a career for herself, perhaps in the Arts field, rather that having a life of Royal engagements until old age.

In other words, the departure of Harry and Meghan from Royal working life may well have implications for monarch's younger children and grandchildren in the future. We don't know in fact if Charlotte and Louis will choose a life in the service of the monarchy in Britain or one outside.

It might be that Harry and Meghan's departure may have sparked some discussion among senior royals as to whether future spares can have lives and careers, very different to their predecessors and in the way managed in royal families in Europe.

I believe that is more what Lacey was referring to, and if he was then Harry and Meghan's departure has indeed changed the BRF.

 

[yukari]

Then there's the case of the Duke of Gloucester who's not even a spare to the throne (and never was since birth, his closest was 5th), but ended his architectural career to take on the subservient road and still does ...

 

[Curryong]

Prince Richard ended his architectural career in 1972, because at that time he was expected to take on some royal duties on behalf of the Crown as his ailing father could no longer do so and his brother was dead. That was in the Britain of 1972, a completely different and much more deferential and unquestioning country than today's UK.

It's not expected nowadays for a plethora of the monarch's cousins and other extended relatives to give up their private lives to serve the Crown. Then it was.

In Charles's reign it will be a very much smaller band of royals performing Royal engagements full time and in William's reign (if there is still a monarchy) it will almost certainly be smaller still. I certainly don't expect Charlotte or Louis to be taking on fulltime royal duties. And that will be the difference.

 

[AC21091968]

Then there's the case of the Duke of Gloucester who's not even a spare to the throne (and never was since birth, his closest was 5th), but ended his architectural career to take on the subservient road and still does ...

And serve his country and supported The Queen (paternal cousin) with little or no fuss. He is certainly do not "feel marginalised" by other members of the Royal Family, judging by his comment on the Press focusing more on younger royals rather than himself.

I really dislike the "so called modern/contemporary" idea that you have to challenge, rebel or speak out against the system, otherwise you are submissive to the hierarchy or part of the problem. It's basically freedom of choice when it suits the progressive narrative (like equality when it suits the narrative). Unfortunately, this is what I interpreted it when I read Robert Lacey's interview.

Yes, Prince Louis and Princess Charlotte may not be working royals in Charles' or even William's reign, but that is because of royal family members are living longer and physically able to take more duties. Another significant reason is the slimming down of the Monarchy. It's not solely because of Harry & Meghan leaving the Firm. I think it's sheer arrogance that Lacey came to the conclusion that Harry & Meghan changed system on how the Royal Family decided who should be working royals.

 

[yukari]

My bad, I thought Princess Margaret and Prince Richard were in the same generation ?

After all, we don't know if someone like Princess Margaret, had she received an adequate education might not have been happier making a career for herself, perhaps in the Arts field, rather that having a life of Royal engagements until old age.