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.
Which Alexandra's granddaughter is an actress? Zenouska or Flora?
And Anne's herself didn't marry a prince.:flowers:
Why Sophie WInkleman cannot continue her career? :ermm: Her husband is so distant relative to the Queen that I was sure he leads a life like commoners.


Flora .She appeared in Downton Abbey before going to the University of St Andrews

Apparently I misspoke about Sophie Winkleman as she has now started back -including an episode of Hot In Cleveland where she played the sister of one of the main cast,and who makes a move on a fictional Duke who is 47th in line to the throne which at the time her daughter was

"Hot in Cleveland" We Could Be Royals (TV Episode 2015) - IMDb
At the end of the episode, Jill (Sophie Winkelman) makes note of the fact that the Earl of Cleveland is 47th in line to the throne. Winkelman's eldest daughter, Maud Windsor, through her marriage to Lord Frederick Windsor, is actually 47th in line to the British throne as a great-granddaughter of King George V through his fourth son, Prince George, Duke of Kent.
 
Flora .She appeared in Downton Abbey before going to the University of St Andrews

Apparently I misspoke about Sophie Winkleman as she has now started back -including an episode of Hot In Cleveland where she played the sister of one of the main cast,and who makes a move on a fictional Duke who is 47th in line to the throne which at the time her daughter was

"Hot in Cleveland" We Could Be Royals (TV Episode 2015) - IMDb

Just a note to clarify things. I seriously doubt that Sophie is anywhere near reviving her acting career at this time as she was recently in a pretty serious car accident.

Sophie Winkleman seriously injured in car crash with suspected broken back – Royal Central
 
Just a note to clarify things. I seriously doubt that Sophie is anywhere near reviving her acting career at this time as she was recently in a pretty serious car accident.

Sophie Winkleman seriously injured in car crash with suspected broken back – Royal Central


That's not good .

But she is listed in the cast for Trust (a series about JP Getty III's kidnapping)that is due to air next year and had been filmed in the summer- so prior to the accident she was dipping her toe back in
 
Princess Michael is a wordy woman.

She's wordy but very discrete. The British press have caricatured her but the vast majority of the Princess' interviewers always find themselves knocked back when they ask anything too personal. She was quite sharp in an interview with Conrad Black on the subject: "Why are you asking me about other members of the family? You know I wouldn't say anything!". She's passed comment on deceased members of the family, she's given fairly bland congratulations and praise for living members but anyone who thinks Princess Michael (or Princess Alexandra or the Princess Royal for that matter) will have some kind of public fit or even offer private scorn is really buying too much into Daily Mail gossip fodder.

The Princess Royal is divorced and remarried. I also think she couldn't give a stuff about the backgrounds or passions of other members of the family or what they do and don't do. As she said when William was engaged, "Very happy for them but none of my business".

The Duke of York may be a little sour in being pushed down a peg or two in the near future and his role will naturally diminish as Harry and Meghan have children and take on more shared duties. But that's just Andrew and we're all used to that by now.

I don't think Meghan could step on any royal toes, even if she wanted to. If anyone does dislike her within the family, they'll keep their mouths shut and just get on with it.
 
I'm waiting for the inevitable showdown between Prince Andrew, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Princesses Anne and Alexandra, and Michael and Meghan regarding relationships. As a big royal family, they will have to relate and communicate with each other.

Anne is a no-nonsense princess, I wonder how she will feel about her new niece-in-law.

:ermm: We're on the outside looking in. And what the tabloids print tends not to bear much resemblance to reality. I would imagine the Windsors & Mountbatten-Windsors are like many other large, extended families in terms of relationships, except for their status as one of the more historic and famous families in the world.

In any case, I would think that all royal family members who love Harry are happy for him and will be both welcoming and respectful toward his fiancee. Plus Meghan seems to have an innate ability to charm most everyone she meets up close and personal. And this was apparently the case with her from a young age onward, well before she became an actor.

Meghan clearly has a joie de vivre and a goofy sense of humor. And reportedly the royals tend to enjoy having lighthearted fun with each other when they convene for private family gatherings.
 
I think that while they are close than some families in the modern world, it is very far from being a love fest where they spend all their time together or indulge in "Dallas" type family feuds. Most of htem are busy people.. Anne certainly isn't the type to waste her energy bothering too much about her nephew's new wife...
 
Well, there's the immediate family and the extended family. I've heard that the immediate royal family do enjoy having lighthearted fun together. Why not have a teasing sense of humor when you are a family living in such a goldfish bowl existence? I would imagine they let their hair down a bit and are real with each other behind closed doors in a way that they aren't in public.

Aside from the royalty factor, people are people and families are made up of all kinds of different personalities who don't always get along with each other or see eye-to-eye. The Queen and Prince Philip likely usually have the last word in any major disputes, but I've heard the Queen tends to be forgiving and lenient, while strict about observing certain rituals and traditions. I'm sure she's very partial to all of her grandchildren and great-grands.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we may expect another engagement announcement soon?:flowers:
Zara and Mike's engegement was announced just a few weeks after that of William and Kate's (and both weddings took place in just a few weeks' period)

I wouldn't be surpised either (although the weddings took place within a few months of each other instead of a few weeks).
 
Maybe we may expect another engagement announcement soon?:flowers:
Zara and Mike's engegement was announced just a few weeks after that of William and Kate's (and both weddings took place in just a few weeks' period)

While the announcement was just over a month after the Cambridges (Cambridges November 16, Zara December 21) the weddings were three months apart (Cambridges April 29, Zara July 30).

Zara is a private citizen though, and her wedding was a more private event. While Eugenie certainly would have a much smaller wedding then Harry, there would likely be some more pomp then Zara.

But that said, I highly doubt Harry would have an issue if his cousin announced sometime soon. He and the Yorks are quite close. And most adults realize the entire year doesn't stop for their own event. A nice fall wedding for Eugenie would be a nice thought.
 
While the announcement was just over a month after the Cambridges (Cambridges November 16, Zara December 21) the weddings were three months apart (Cambridges April 29, Zara July 30).

Zara is a private citizen though, and her wedding was a more private event. While Eugenie certainly would have a much smaller wedding then Harry, there would likely be some more pomp then Zara.

But that said, I highly doubt Harry would have an issue if his cousin announced sometime soon. He and the Yorks are quite close. And most adults realize the entire year doesn't stop for their own event. A nice fall wedding for Eugenie would be a nice thought.

Honestly, I don’t see the York girls having weddings that are televised or bigger than Peter Phillips’. I wouldn’t rule out a wedding on the same scale as Zara for them.
 
For the York girls, I wouldn't rule out a destination wedding. Especially if they wait long enough that their grandparents are deceased. Necker Island, would be my guess.

I do think that Harry's wedding will be the last "big" televised wedding we're going to see of the BRF until George and Charlotte come of age. Even Edward and Sophie's children will be relatively low level weddings most likely.
 
I agree...this is the last one for at least 20 years or more.


LaRae
 
Honestly, I don’t see the York girls having weddings that are televised or bigger than Peter Phillips’. I wouldn’t rule out a wedding on the same scale as Zara for them.

I didn't say televised. But I don't see Andrew having it be a 'hush hush' private event for his daughter. Eugenie will be the first wedding of a British princess in decades (44 years since Anne's first marriage and counting). There will definitely be a guest list, Eugenie and Beatrice both move in continental royal circles, they could have more foreign guests then Harry. Whether it is televised (highly not) or public, there will still be a great deal of planning and manoovering for it.

While media doesn't have to be taken into account, the royal guests do.

Osipi I don't see Eugenie waiting until her grandparents die. Actually I think Philip's health might push her to take next step. And I don't see her getting married without them there. Both girls have shown, even if they haven't been offered any recognition for their work, they take their royal lives very seriously. I don't see either taking off for a beach wedding with no family.

But again not saying it cant happen. Like people suggesting Harry shouldn't have got engaged until after baby Cambridge was even born, most grown ups understand they don't have a claim on the entire year. I don't see Harry and Eugenie having an issue sharing 2018 as a wedding year.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say televised. But I don't see Andrew having it be a 'hush hush' private event for his daughter. Eugenie will be the first wedding of a British princess in decades (44 years since Anne's first marriage and counting). There will definitely be a guest list, Eugenie and Beatrice both move in continental royal circles, they could have more foreign guests then Harry. Whether it is televised (highly not) or public, there will still be a great deal of planning and manoovering for it.

While media doesn't have to be taken into account, the royal guests do.

Osipi I don't see Eugenie waiting until her grandparents die. Actually I think Philip's health might push her to take next step. And I don't see her getting married without them there. Both girls have shown, even if they haven't been offered any recognition for their work, they take their royal lives very seriously. I don't see either taking off for a beach wedding with no family.

But again not saying it cant happen. Like people suggesting Harry shouldn't have got engaged until after baby Cambridge was even born, most grown ups understand they don't have a claim on the entire year. I don't see Harry and Eugenie having an issue sharing 2018 as a wedding year.
What I meant is that I see it more as the Phillips children’s scale rather than a royal affair. And honestly, the foreign continental royals they have relationship with aren’t the kings and queens. Harry and William both have attended friends’ weddings in U.K. and abroad. I don’t see any possible foreign royal guest Eugenie can have that would require more consideration than William and Harry attending would’ve required of their friends. Harry’s wedding will be small on a royal scale, and the York princesses’ wedding would only be smaller. I’m not saying it’ll be hush hush, but it’d be more of a family affair rather than a royal wedding.

And honestly, the last princesses to have a big splashy royal wedding being 44 years ago won’t matter. Royal weddings are royal weddings, be it princes or princesses.

And no one has said they can’t share 2018. Simply that they might wait until they are ready, not because Harry is getting married. And it could very well not be this year. Prince Philip and the Queen are in their 90s. If Eugenie wants to hurry up because of that, she’d done it well before now.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Eugenie's boyfriend has not asked her. I agree that if she were wanting to hurry up her weddng so as to be sure of having th queen and Philp there, she could have done it before now.
I don't believe that her weddng if she has one,will be very big, maybe not even televised.. as apart from having the title of princess she' and Bea are almost private citizens...
 
I definitely don't think that either of the York princesses' weddings will be televised. If Eugenie gets her way I would think 'destination wedding' perhaps in Switzerland. If Andrew gets his way it will be St George's, but I do think it will be like the Phillips wedding in scale.
 
If I were Princess Michael I would sue. “A history of racial bias” indeed. It’s tomorrow’s chip paper in a very slow news week. Unbelievable the depths to which so called journalists will sink.
 
If I were Princess Michael I would sue. “A history of racial bias” indeed. It’s tomorrow’s chip paper in a very slow news week. Unbelievable the depths to which so called journalists will sink.

It's true, though. Incontrovertably. Her own defense against claims that she'd insulted black people as "colonials" was not to say she didn't do it, but to say she'd tried to pass as black. Which is profoundly racist! She's a proven bigot, as most royals once were.
 
The princess is accused of wearing an offensive brooch at Buckingham Palace during Queen Elizabeth II's annual Christmas lunch in front of Meghan Markle.

Mrs. Kent did speak with Ms. Markle.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...-markle/ar-BBH7HXO?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Princess Michael has a history of "racial bias".

I'm still shocked by the obvious lack of culture and this desperate attempt to find some drama where there is not.

A reminder :

For some of our friends here lacking a bit of knowledge about High Jewellery:

"Cartier blackamoor head clip brooches (or “Moor of Venice” from Shakespeare's Othello) appeared in a great number of variations between 1950 and 1958".

The Venetian house Nardi made similar clips, called "Moretti brooch", often worn by royal ladies :

http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/les-broches-moretti-de-nardi/

http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/la...ace-de-monaco/
 
Nonsense. She admitted she used the word colonials but explicitly said that she did not use it in a derogatory way, neither was it aimed at the diners present. She also didn’t say she had tried to pass as black at all. She said that she dyed her hair black and pretended she was mixed race to fit in better with her circle of friends at the time - she was I believe around 17 at the time. You’re taking words from one Guardian article (a republican newspaper) and twisting it to suit a spiteful narrative.

She isn’t a proven bigot at all. Far from it. It’s time for people to calm down, move on and leave the poor woman alone. All this fuss over a brooch is absolutely insane and symptomatic of a culture that thrives on offence. The idea that “most royals” are or were racist or bigoted is equally insulting.

Princess Marina provided cover for gay friends at a time when homosexuality was illegal. Edward VII raised merry hell when he found out that people in his party were making insulting racist remarks to Indians whilst on tour there. Queen Victoria embraced Indian culture. This whole incident is being turned into something very nasty indeed. I’m aware people take comfort these days in finding things to be outraged about but slandering people to suit is a step too far.
 
And I might add, since when was one incident well over a decade ago a proven track record of racial bias?
 
I'm still shocked by the obvious lack of culture and this desperate attempt to find some drama where there is not.

A reminder :

For some of our friends here lacking a bit of knowledge about High Jewellery:

"Cartier blackamoor head clip brooches (or “Moor of Venice” from Shakespeare's Othello) appeared in a great number of variations between 1950 and 1958".

The Venetian house Nardi made similar clips, called "Moretti brooch", often worn by royal ladies :

http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/les-broches-moretti-de-nardi/

http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/la...ace-de-monaco/



Yes, and they are all based on fetishized imagery of black people in subservient roles and are an artifact of systemic racism. In 2017, they should not be worn. This was a faux pas and Princess Michael should retire that particular brooch.
 
To me, its extremely possible that in choosing her jewelry to wear that day, Princess Michael just put it on without thinking. Perhaps even forgot totally that Meghan is biracial and just accepts Meghan for being Meghan and as the person that is making Harry very happy.

I seriously don't think PM was out to purposely offend or cause controversy but hey, it happened, it was a mistake. Who among us hasn't made a mistake? Anyone?
 
Yes, and they are all based on fetishized imagery of black people in subservient roles and are an artifact of systemic racism. In 2017, they should not be worn. This was a faux pas and Princess Michael should retire that particular brooch.

No its not. It's called ART.
This PC brigade is just ridiculous ....
 
Or they’re just pretty brooches with absolutely no connotation other than to depict a historical figure which the wearer finds aesthetically pleasing. Let’s not attach statue removal logic to something as insignificant as a brooch. If HRH wants to wear it, she’s entitled to. We have no idea how she came by it or what significance it holds for her personally. She’s a private person, she’s free to do as she pleases.

Everyone has the right to be offended but conversely, we all have the right to wear what we like when we like too. People can find offence in anything and frequently do but we have to draw the line somewhere. As another poster wisely pointed out, many jewels have historically murky pasts as to how they were actually acquired. Does that mean the Burmese Tiara is out? The Koh I Noor? The Australian Opals?
 
After reading all posts I still say whatever it means or doesn’t mean it was a silly thing to wear it. I’m sure she has enough to wear without risking anyone being upset.
And she does like a little bit of attention IMO
 
Let's look at the possibilities without any judgements one way or the other, just for a moment.

The first possibility is that this was a gift from her husband, children, parents or an extended family member many years ago. Maybe a relative present at the lunch. Princess Michael oftens wear it, we just haven't seen it before. She wore it because it's in regular circulation with her wardrobe and she likes it.

The second possibility is that she wears it every Christmas because she sees it as representing St Balthazar. St Balthazar is a patron saint of Germany and in particular, Saxony. Given the Princess' frequent visits to that region, it could be that she has a fondness for that Saint and even though it wasn't designed to represent St Balthazar, she feels it does and considered it suitable for a Christmas lunch.

The third possibility is that it's a recent gift connecting to one of her books which features moors as characters. Maybe a gift from her publisher or literary agent which she chose to wear to this outing because it's brand new.

The fourth possibility is that it was given to her by a public official or head of state as a gift many moons ago or recently on one of her visits abroad. Perhaps a gift from a President from one of the African countries or even an African Bishop?

The fifth possibility is that she thought it looked pretty, bought it many years ago, put her coat on and pinned the brooch on without thinking that keyboard warriors would be up in arms about it.

Was it a mistake to wear it? Was it an error of judgement? That's in the eye of the beholder and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one thing I'm pretty sure of is that at no point did it ever cross Princess Michael's mind that she would cause offence and I reassert that she is absolutely not some habitual bigot or casual racist. We don't know why she wore it or how she came to own it but what we do know is that everyone has a right to wear what they like and everyone else has the right to love it or hate it. There are bigger social injustices out there to focus on than an antique jewel on a coat.
 
I seem to recall asking people to move on from discussing the broach worn by Princess Michael of Kent in the Christmas thread...I don't recall suggesting that we move the conversation to this thread.

Time to move on.

And yes, both threads will be subject to a clean up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom