Relationships between Members of the British Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous: I try not to click on Daily Mail links because they are so full "alternative news". You only have to read some of the headlines to see their total inconsistency especially around Harry and his new girlfriend. Some DM headlines say Charles has ordered Harry to dump her as she is totally beyond the pale and the next day, he and the grandparents are ecstatic about the romance.

One week the Cambridge family are domestic bliss personified with their darling, adorable cherubs, the next they are the laziest people in the royal family which is appalling when the Queen and the Duke of Edinborough are in their 90's.

The DM journalists each have their own personal favourites and dislikes and that is how they write their articles, sometimes in the same edition.

Having said all that, give me a special occasion, a gala, etc. and I'll click because their photographers are the best in the business and I love gorgeous gowns and white or black tie occasions. Sometimes I also read the article just to see how many royals they have mistaken for others. :D
 
I wonder what the relationship is between Prince Andrew and his older sister, Princess Anne? He was born 10 years after her, and they seem to have a good relationship as brother. I wonder what her relationship was with her ex-sister-in-law, the former Princess Andrew, Duchess of York, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York?

Prince Philip and Princess Anne hold Prince Andrew's hands as he sits... News Photo | Getty Images

Princess Anne and Prince Andrew with their nannies and corgis at... News Photo | Getty Images
 
Ten years is ten years, a huge gap in childhood. Anne and Andrew are probably cordial when they meet and are quite fond of each other but I can't see them having a huge amount in common. The only thing I can remember about Anne's relationship with Sarah York was that she remarked that she 'seems a very nice girl' when she met her pre the engagement, which again doesn't strike me as pointing to a great closeness to her brother when they were both adults.

On the subject of Charles and his grandkids --
Yes the DM is a slime of a newspaper and its journos are often liars. However the DM didn't make up the fact that Charles was absent for two out of George's three birthdays, on one occasion choosing squirrels over kith and kin. The newspaper didn't ban him from the occasions.

Sally Bedell Smith, his latest biographer, presumably wasn't lying or she would have risked a law suit when she wrote that Tiggy, mentor to his sons, rang Charles up about his virtual absence from George's life and suggested some measures to counter that.
 
Last edited:
In all the years I've been married, I've been absent for at least 50% of my husbands birthdays.

Work is like that.

No member of the royal family has control over their diary in the way some posters say. It is the state, government, patronages and charities that dictate.

Best example is a royal wedding being put back a day because a Head of State funeral was taking place in Rome.

Royal families are not dictators - they are servants of their people.
 
What we don't really know is how much contact Charles has with either son at all.

For all we know they may see each other quite a lot but then again they may only see each other on those occasions when forced to be in each other's company. For instance we haven't seen William and Charles at any event this year other than Vimy Ridge. If Charles has been there e.g. the Commonwealth Service, William hasn't. William was at the Easter service but Charles wasn't. Is this because William and Charles are at odds with each other or simply that their schedules didn't allow them to be together (Charles had engagements in Scotland either side of Easter so he would have had to made two trips to carry out his engagements to see the rest of his family at Easter).

Personally I don't think William and Harry do have that great a relationship with Charles as they never mention him when they are meeting the public - always Diana but never their father, unless they are doing a documentary on him. Otherwise he doesn't exist for them with the public.

The fact that Charles didn't go to George's birthday parties could also be explained by finding out if he was asked. It is easy to assume that he was when we don't have the evidence one way or the other.

Last year we saw George and Charlotte with the BRF at Trooping and with Harry when President Obama visited. Other than that they weren't seen with anyone else at all - did they see anyone else or not? We don't know.
 
In all the years I've been married, I've been absent for at least 50% of my husbands birthdays.

Work is like that.

No member of the royal family has control over their diary in the way some posters say. It is the state, government, patronages and charities that dictate.

Best example is a royal wedding being put back a day because a Head of State funeral was taking place in Rome.

Royal families are not dictators - they are servants of their people.

Yes, Cepe, that sounds all very noble. However, as another poster noted earlier, for George's first birthday (at that time George was his only grandchild) Charles chose to visit a squirrel sanctuary. I'm a grandparent, and I have to say, as a busy person myself, I wouldn't have made that choice.

Birthdays aren't movable feasts. Each year it's the same date. What would prevent Charles (unless a tour abroad or something of national importance is booked) from pencilling in two dates only in his calendar, the birthdays of his only two grandchildren, and resolving that each year he will be there on their birthdays? Charles's calendar too inflexible for that? I think not.

Family life is what you make of it and if you put hardly anything of yourself into it that is precisely what you will get back.
 
Last edited:
What we don't really know is how much contact Charles has with either son at all.

For all we know they may see each other quite a lot but then again they may only see each other on those occasions when forced to be in each other's company. For instance we haven't seen William and Charles at any event this year other than Vimy Ridge. If Charles has been there e.g. the Commonwealth Service, William hasn't. William was at the Easter service but Charles wasn't. Is this because William and Charles are at odds with each other or simply that their schedules didn't allow them to be together (Charles had engagements in Scotland either side of Easter so he would have had to made two trips to carry out his engagements to see the rest of his family at Easter).

Personally I don't think William and Harry do have that great a relationship with Charles as they never mention him when they are meeting the public - always Diana but never their father, unless they are doing a documentary on him. Otherwise he doesn't exist for them with the public.

The fact that Charles didn't go to George's birthday parties could also be explained by finding out if he was asked. It is easy to assume that he was when we don't have the evidence one way or the other.

Last year we saw George and Charlotte with the BRF at Trooping and with Harry when President Obama visited. Other than that they weren't seen with anyone else at all - did they see anyone else or not? We don't know.

You know, I don't question Charles's love for his sons and his sons for him, but I do think they let Charles live in his own world and they live theirs. As I said before, outside of big family events, Charles's branch really don't present themselves as a family unit. Perhaps there's real reasons for that. It works for them. But the media has taken notice and they are writing about it.
 
Andrew and Edward have a very close relationship as brothers, since they were born in four years of each other.

We know that Charles and Andrew don't get along, I wonder if Edward and Anne get along? Do Sophie and Anne? Do Sophie and Andrew get along? Sophie and Philip, her father-in-law?
 
We don't know any of these people and can only surmise. They also don't live in each other's pockets. It's been said that the Queen and Prince Philip go regularly to have tea at Edward and Sophie's house and see Louise and James so they seem to be close. Sophie and the Queen have mutual hobbies. I wouldn't think that Edward and Andrew have that much in common. Edward doesn't fly, doesn't sail much and Andrew's not really interested in the creative arts.

Why would they have a very close relationship as brothers? Four years in childhood is a heck of a gap. It means a ten year old and a six year old have a lot in common! Don't think so! There is a thirteen and a half year gap between Edward and Anne. Huge in childhood and as adults not very much in common IMO as Anne seems to have less interest in the theatre than Edward and Edward's not horse mad!
 
Last edited:
We don't know any of these people and can only surmise. They also don't live in each other's pockets. It's been said that the Queen and Prince Philip go regularly to have tea at Edward and Sophie's house and see Louise and James so they seem to be close. Sophie and the Queen have mutual hobbies. I wouldn't think that Edward and Andrew have that much in common. Edward doesn't fly, doesn't sail much and Andrew's not really interested in the creative arts.

Why would they have a very close relationship as brothers? Four years in childhood is a heck of a gap. It means a ten year old and a six year old have a lot in common! Don't think so!

Andrew and Edward seem very close, Edward was Andrew's best man in 1986. Andrew and Charles were Edward's best men in 1999. Andrew and Edward were Charles' best man in 1981. They seem close.

With the other members of the BRF, I wonder if Anne and Princess Michael get along? They seem like polar opposites. To me, Anne has this blue collar vibe about her, and Marie-Christine has a luxurious vibe.
 
It's a tradition in the BRF (and some other royal families) for Royal males with brothers to have their male siblings as their supporters at their weddings. It's not an indicator of their closeness or otherwise to each other.
 
You know, I don't question Charles's love for his sons and his sons for him, but I do think they let Charles live in his own world and they live theirs. As I said before, outside of big family events, Charles's branch really don't present themselves as a family unit. Perhaps there's real reasons for that. It works for them. But the media has taken notice and they are writing about it.

I agree with you - and I don't find anything wrong with it at all. The older people get, the more they go back to themselves - live how they really are or want to live - and Charles has never been normal or hands on anyway.
I am sure they love and respect each other as family should but imo there is no need to be all over each other in everyday life.
If Kate's family is different, hands on and younger and more willing or able to accommodate the grandchildren, even better. But that's not standard, at least not where I come from, and I don't see any fault in it. Its ok to be only part of certain aspects of children's lives.
 
Andrew and Edward seem very close, Edward was Andrew's best man in 1986. Andrew and Charles were Edward's best men in 1999. Andrew and Edward were Charles' best man in 1981. They seem close.

With the other members of the BRF, I wonder if Anne and Princess Michael get along? They seem like polar opposites. To me, Anne has this blue collar vibe about her, and Marie-Christine has a luxurious vibe.


I don't get the feeling that any of the Queen's children are all that close at all with each other. They spend time with each other when visiting the Queen but otherwise not that much it seems e.g. Edward sticks around at Sandringham for often a week or more but Andrew leaves straight after the Queen's Message is broadcast with his daughters. They go to Sarah. Camilla and Charles leave at the same time - Camilla to go to her own children and grandchildren and Charles to go alone to Scotland.

As they have grown into adults and have their own children they have less time to spend together.

There are reports that Anne sometimes visits Highgrove to see Charles but not that any of the others ever visit each other's homes other than The Queen's (doesn't mean they don't - just that there aren't any reports of it happening).

Anne and Princess Michael to me have nothing in common at all. They come from very different backgrounds. Outside of the Kent's themselves I don't see Princess Michael as being that close to any of them. She is a cat person while the rest of the family are dog lovers. Not all that important in itself but indicative of differences. Anne doesn't come across as into the arts etc while Princess Michael does. Just no real common interests on which to build a relationship along with the different generations as well with Prince Michael being Anne's mother's first cousin not hers.

Princess Micheal comes across as a bit of a snob in some ways e.g. her comment that the BRF cared more about the breeding of their horses and dogs than they do about who their children married.
 
Andrew and Edward have a very close relationship as brothers, since they were born in four years of each other.

We know that Charles and Andrew don't get along, I wonder if Edward and Anne get along? Do Sophie and Anne? Do Sophie and Andrew get along? Sophie and Philip, her father-in-law?
Firstly, we do not know if Andrew and Edward even like each other let alone "have a very close relationship". Age has nothing to do with family dynamics, people do!

We don't know that Charles and Andrew don't get along either. Both of those absolute statements require validation from a reputable source. "I heard" doesn't count.

The children in my mother's family spanned 14 years making my youngest uncle 2 years older than my eldest sister. My eldest sister adored our brother and vice versa and he was 18 years her junior. He even took his 4-year-old niece to 'show and tell' at school and they are close to this day.

Our families don't have 'generations' as such, we merely roll over. My eldest great nephew is 25, my youngest great niece is 4! The point I am trying to make is that we are not defined by our place in the family but rather by being part of the family. Close relationships are many, totally unpredictable and non-age-specific.

We don't brag about family ties, show off our closeness and absolutely do not do 'air kisses' in public. Now if my family can be like that, why can't the British Royal Family. They even get together on a grand scale way more than we do!
 
Captain Mark Phillips relationships with the British Royal Family

Captain Mark Phillips was always seen as one of the low-key members of the BRF when he married Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne in 1973 until their divorce in the early 1990s.

What was his relationship with his mother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth II? What was his relationship with his father-in-law, Prince Philip, his brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law Diana and Sarah?

How did he fit in the British Royal Family I wonder?
 
I don't think the intimate relationships between members of the BRF is something that is actively researched and archived but I do find that by reading what is available (biographies and such), it does give insights into what is known about the interpersonal relationship between members of the BRF.

An example of this would be the book "A Housekeeper's Diary" by Wendy Berry. She worked at Highgrove during Charles and Diana's sojourn there together. She tells her her experiences and we are given a glimpse into Anne's bringing the children over to play, visits by the Queen Mum and such. Its from her own point of view of things and one has to read it with that in mind. Perhaps some books exists of the Anne and Mark years. I don't know. I haven't looked. It would be a step though to get more insight into relationships than what we already have.

Another example is that just recently the Queen stepped out for the evening to a 80th birthday celebration for Countess Helen of Toerring-Jettenbach. I had absolutely no clue that these two women even knew each other let alone good enough friends for HM to attend her birthday party.

We're really just not that clued into the members of the BRF's intimate relationships with other people. I think that is because they really strive to keep the focus on what they do for crown and country than as being "reality stars" where every phone call, conversation and disagreement is blared out in full force for the public.
 
We do know that Charles didn't think very much of Mark and used to call him 'fog' to imply he wasn't very bright.

Other than that we have no idea how the family got along with him or what they thought/think of him.

They are entitled to a private life and how they feel about each other is just that - private.

Unless there is a private issue that becomes relevant to their public life then it should be left as just that - private.
 
[...]
Another example is that just recently the Queen stepped out for the evening to a 80th birthday celebration for Countess Helen of Toerring-Jettenbach. I had absolutely no clue that these two women even knew each other let alone good enough friends for HM to attend her birthday party.

[...]

Helena is not only "friends" but real family. She is a full cousin to Edward, Alexandra and Michael of Kent as her mother was a sister to the late Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. And of course she is related to Prince Philip as well.

From King George I of the Hellenes to the Kents

King George I of the Hellenes, Prince of Greece and Denmark
x Olga Constantinovna Romanova, Grand-Princess of Russia
= > Prince Nicholas

Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark
x Helena Vladimirovna Romanova, Grand-Princess of Russia
= > Princess Marina

Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark
x Prince George, The Duke of Kent
= > Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent
= > Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy
= > Prince Michael of Kent

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

From King George I of the Hellenes to the Mountbatten-Windsors

King George I of the Hellenes, Prince of Greece and Denmark
x Olga Constantinovna Romanova, Grand-Princess of Russia
= > Prince Andreas

Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark
x Alice Princess von Battenberg
= > Prince Philip

Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
x Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom Etc.
= > Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales
= > Princess Anne, The Princess Royal
= > Prince Andrew, The Duke of York
= > Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex

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

From King George I of the Hellenes to the Zu Toerring-Jettenbachs

King George I of the Hellenes, Prince of Greece and Denmark
x Olga Constantinovna Romanova, Grand-Princess of Russia
= > Prince Nicholas

Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark
x Helena Vladimirovna Romanova, Grand-Princess of Russia
= > Princess Helena

Princess Helena of Greece and Denmark
x Karl Theodor Count zu Toerring-Jettenbach
= > Hans Veit Count zu Toerring-Jettenbach
= > Archduchess Helena of Austria born Countess zu Toerring-Jettenbach

:flowers:

Another -more remote- relationship with the British royal family: this Archduchess Helena's youngest daughter Sophia married Mariano Hugo, Prince zu Windisch-Grätz. Both the three Kent siblings as well Princess Michael are related to this family:

- Marie-Christine (Princess Michael) via her grandmother, Hedwig Countess Szapáry von Muraszombath, Széchysziget und Szapár born Princess zu Windisch-Grätz

- Edward, Alexandra and Michael of Kent are first cousins once removed of Sophia Princess zu Windisch-Grätz born Archduchess of Austria (Queen Elizabeth's friend Archduchess Helena's daughter).
 
Last edited:
Wow. Thanks Duc! Interesting to know just how these two women are actually related and good friends to each other. I would be willing to bet that before HM attended this birthday party, most of us wouldn't have a clue as to who Helen was and that she in any way, shape or form had a relationship with the Queen.

Its part of HM's private family life and that isn't what HM wants the focus on her to be. She's not a reality star but a head of state and a monarch.
 
I wonder if Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret would have gotten along with the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?

It's a very good question.
 
They got along with Antony Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, Sarah Ferguson, Sophie Rhys-Jones and Timothy Laurence. It would surprise me they would not have liked Catherine Middleton. No reason to think so, is my guess.
 
I wonder if Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret would have gotten along with the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?



It's a very good question.



Sorry but who's Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?! I didn't know William and his wife had divorced.

Be a stickler for titles but use them correctly.

And it's not a very good question as we can't get a definitive answer to it, but as Duc said they got along with all other royal spouses, Catherine would have been no different.
 
I wonder if Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret would have gotten along with the Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?

It's a very good question.

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge would be correct IF she were divorced as happened with Diana when she became Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah who is Sarah, Duchess of York. That was their styling after their divorces

HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge would be correct IF she were widowed. This is the standard way a widowed peeress is referred to officially although in the past TM George VI and Elizabeth II allowed the widows of the late Dukes of Kent and Gloucester to be referred to as TRH Princess Marina and Princess Alice respectively. Princess Marina, of course, was Princess Marina from birth but in the UK she was Princess Edward. Having set that precedent when the late Duke of Gloucester died Elizabeth allowed her aunt to use HRH Princess Alice even though she had never had that style in her own right. Using that precedent it is conceivable that a widowed Kate may be allowed to use HRH Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge but that decision would only be made at the time she became a widow - assuming she hasn't a higher title to use.

As she is neither the correct styling is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - no use of the name Catherine at all. If she is to use a name it would be as HRH Princess William. On her marriage she lost the right to use her own name in official documents until she is HM Queen Catherine.
 
Sorry but who's Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?! I didn't know William and his wife had divorced.

Be a stickler for titles but use them correctly.

And it's not a very good question as we can't get a definitive answer to it, but as Duc said they got along with all other royal spouses, Catherine would have been no different.

That's how she is known worldwide. Other than that, I guess the Queen Mother would like her great-granddaughter-in-law. Margaret would probably have have doubts about her grandniece-in-law.
 
That's how she is known worldwide. Other than that, I guess the Queen Mother would like her great-granddaughter-in-law. Margaret would probably have have doubts about her grandniece-in-law.



Just because the press get it wrong somebody who is such a stickler for titles, even choosing to use the lesser titles for royals should know the correct way.

You can guess all you like but it's pretty pointless.
 
That's how she is known worldwide. Other than that, I guess the Queen Mother would like her great-granddaughter-in-law. Margaret would probably have have doubts about her grandniece-in-law.

If you're going by the press, chances are that you'll get titles very, very wrong. Big one is Princess Diana. She was never Princess Diana but either HRH The Princess of Wales or, after the divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales. Sometimes even, the press still uses Camilla Parker-Bowles. There is an excellent thread here that dates back to 2003 and contains a wealth of knowledge on British Titles and Styles.

There are also those in the press that don't know what they're saying too. I've seen the Queen called HRH in some places too. :bang: It takes a bit of time and the interest to read about it but there's so much to know.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/questions-about-british-styles-and-titles-258.html

If you're really wanting to know the relationship between some of the members of the BRF and the Queen and the Queen Mum, there is a really good book that gives good insight into these people called "The Final Curtsey: A Royal Memoir" by Margaret Rhodes. Mrs. Rhodes was the Queen's first cousin and niece to the Queen Mum and just died recently in November 2016 at the age of 91. I've found it to be interesting and a good read.

We can guess, speculate and even invent our own thoughts about how these people get along or would get along but we're never going to hit on the reality of their relationships because of the simple fact that we don't know them. That is the reason why your best resources in answer to these questions is to read about it in sources written by the people that do and did know them.
 
That's how she is known worldwide. Other than that, I guess the Queen Mother would like her great-granddaughter-in-law. Margaret would probably have have doubts about her grandniece-in-law.

I would argue that most people world wide know her as Kate Middleton and William as Prince William. They know they are married but don't use any titles at all.

If what they are called by the public is the standard then Kate Middleton is the standard, along with Camilla Parker-Bowles rather than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom