Relationships between Members of the British Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am of the opinion that the fractured relationship between Meghan and her father may make Harry appreciate and value his relationship with his father more.
 
From the radio interview in December to Charles inviting Harry to the Reef Conservatiom event on Valentine's day this year and also the fact that Harry and Meghan postponed their honeymoon for a few days so that Harry can give a speech at a garden party in honour of Charles' birthday a few days after the wedding. I would say there hasn't been any reason to assume a tense relationship between Charles and Harry at all recently.

All that doesn't even include how Charles walked Meghan down the aisle and how Harry and Meghan are said to have spent time at the Castle of Mey with Charles this summer.
 
We can’t go by tabloids. They live to stir controversy. It was just a couple of months ago we got pics of Charles and Camilla visiting KP. There’s a photo of Princess Charlotte waving goodbye to Camilla as she’s about to board the royal helicopter.
 
Exactly. What we see and hear comes from media reports that are out there in the public domain. Like all families, they have their private lives and private interactions between each other that we have absolutely no idea about and probably never will.

We do get rare glimpses of their interactions with each other and amusing anecdotes that come out from time to time but all that is just a very little tip of a giant iceberg that remains below the surface and hidden. We'll never get the entire picture of that iceberg. ?
 
Most of the insider’s comments are really regarding William and Charles. I believe I’ve seen everything regarding Harry before, so nothing more than a piece together from prior gossip. I can’t specifically comment on William and Charles since I don’t follow William that much, but they seem to always had an ok relationship.

As for Harry and Charles, it’s been quite obvious that they seem to enjoy a good relationship based on the times they’ve been seen together, especially this past year. I don’t like how they chose to interpret Harry’s comment regarding walking behind his mother’s coffin. Diana’s funeral wasn’t exactly a private event. It was a semi-state event. Decisions weren’t just made by Charles. There was a committee that included Charles Spencer and the PM’s office as well. Does anyone really think Charles would’ve wanted to do that walk if it weren’t for duty? If nothing else, by all accounts, the Prince of Wales feared for his own life at the public’s reaction.

And I don’t know if anyone could have had an idea of how traumatic that would be for the young princes, especially given they didn’t know how to voice it. If I remember correctly, most of the resistance came from William at that time, but it seems to have affected Harry far more. It’s not surprising given that Harry was only 12 at that point. And even if he did put that on Prince Charles primarily, kids do still love their parent despite a mistake here and there. Hindsight is always 20/20. I don’t know if anyone could’ve made a better decision then. And I certainly don’t think the public has any right to judge Prince Charles given their reaction then.

As for the boys not mentioning Charles when they were honoring Diana, I thought that was only normal given the past. They were honoring their mother after 20 years. And I do remember William saying this will likely be the last time they will talk about her this publicly as sons. And this year, it was a retreat back to private. There has been and will be time that they will honor their father. I expect more this fall given it’s the Prince of Wales’ 70th birthday.

Would anyone consider it a sly to their mother if they don’t mention her when they talk about Charles? Of course not. But when Charles isn’t mentioned, it must be because he’s a bad father. Never mind the fact that Harry just honored his father three days after his wedding. Plus he chose his father as one of the interviews when he edited the BBC radio show. There are other moments recently that would point to a warm relationship between the two, but I don’t think it’s necessary to go into all of them.
 
Last edited:
Wow so many great responses.....I agree with everything.

I love the anonymous "royal source" that spilled the beans (cue eye rolling). Who's to say this person is even a royal source as opposed to some gossip mongering paparazzi? That the article referenced Tom Bower's book speaks volumes.

I thought I also read that Prince Philip had encouraged the boys to walk behind their mother's coffin, where he said something to the effect that they would regret it later on if they didn't.

It's not just the media who fees the fuel of the Charles/Diana feud - Paul Burrell seems to constantly leak things about how Diana didn't think Charles was fit to be king, etc... Why does that even matter? She probably said many things she didn't mean when she was upset - same with Charles. There's this TV show here in the States called Feud that is an anthology series. The first year focused on Bette Davis/Joan Crawford, and the second year was to focus on Charles/Diana........but for several reasons, that was dropped. When I read that, I was so relieved; did that really need to be hashed out again?

Anyway, back to the relationships between father and son......Just because family members don't spend a lot of time together - or don't always see eye to eye - doesn't mean they (a) don't love each other and (b) are feuding.
 
Betsypaige said:
Anyway, back to the relationships between father and son......Just because family members don't spend a lot of time together - or don't always see eye to eye - doesn't mean they (a) don't love each other and (b) are feuding.
Click to expand...

Just because they are not seen together publicly does not mean that Charles and his children do not spend time together. We have no idea of the number of times they may meet casually at CH or KP or Highgrove or Windsor or BP without the prying eyes of the media. This is precisely why I tend not to believe most of what is mentioned in the Press about the intra-family relationships. The fact is, few outside the inner BRF actually know what the dynamic actually is.
 
Last edited:
Betsypaige said:
. . . . . Anyway, back to the relationships between father and son......Just because family members don't spend a lot of time together - or don't always see eye to eye - doesn't mean they (a) don't love each other and (b) are feuding.
Click to expand...
Hmm, last year Harry and Meghan spent time at Birkhall with Charles and Camilla and the Castle of Mey this summer. You don't go out of your way to spend time in isolated places in the company of people you dislike!

I am pretty sure there were times when both father and son loved each other but didn't like each other very much, probably more about Osipi's seven years of growth than anything else. :lol:
 
Last edited:
muriel said:
Just because they are not seen together publicly does not mean that Charles and his children do not spend time together. We have no idea of the number of times they may meet casually at CH or KP or Highgrove or Windsor or BP without the prying eyes of the media. This is precisely why I tend not to believe most of what is mentioned in the Press about the intra-family relationships. The fact is, few outside the inner BRF actually know what the dynamic actually is.
Click to expand...

I know that - I’m just saying that IF they don’t see each other all that much. Also, most of the media didn’t even know that Harry and Meghan spent some time with Charles and Camilla in Scotland, so there are surely other times they don’t know about. I agree with you ...l
 
I don't know what to believe or what not. I read in an article that apparently Beatrice and Eugenie doesn't get along with Kate
 
When we see them together they appear to get along just fine. I wouldn't believe tabloids.


LaRae
 
Charles and his sons certainly have different approaches to doing royal business and seem to have given their offices at CH and KP different marching orders in regards to scheduling/selecting events and press relations. It seems it would be entirely normal for a Dad to sometimes grumble “I don’t know why they do that” to staff about decisions his kids make that he would not regarding the “family business.” And perhaps the staff of CH and KP feel tension between the two approaches (very likely they would feel it more keenly than their bosses, since they are the ones tasked with coordinating details between offices when applicable) in ways that royal reporters pick up on.

BUT that doesn’t mean Charles and his sons don’t get along. It doesn’t mean they don’t respect each others’ work. It certainly doesn’t mean they don’t love each other or enjoy each others’ company.
 
loonytick said:
Charles and his sons certainly have different approaches to doing royal business and seem to have given their offices at CH and KP different marching orders in regards to scheduling/selecting events and press relations. It seems it would be entirely normal for a Dad to sometimes grumble “I don’t know why they do that” to staff about decisions his kids make that he would not regarding the “family business.” And perhaps the staff of CH and KP feel tension between the two approaches (very likely they would feel it more keenly than their bosses, since they are the ones tasked with coordinating details between offices when applicable) in ways that royal reporters pick up on.

BUT that doesn’t mean Charles and his sons don’t get along. It doesn’t mean they don’t respect each others’ work. It certainly doesn’t mean they don’t love each other or enjoy each others’ company.
Click to expand...
And of course we see the same kind of 'leaked info.' that BP and CH are feuding - which translates to their respective staffs are feuding, not the actual Royals. The impression I get is that staff comes up with their notion of how it should go, William may not agree and says so, and his father and/or the Queen back William to the chagrin of staff.

There is evidence that Charles has a relationship with his grandchildren, if the tabloids cared to look - the tree house at Highgrove, for example, just as there is evidence that Charles was an involved parent when William and Harry were growing up - if the tabloids looked, but neither furthers the narrative they have built up, thus they are blind to the meaning of those bits because it doesn't further their fiction.
 
So apparently Clarence House responded to these rumors, which is pretty unusual. Naturally, Vanity Fair (as seen below) and Cosmopolitan are skeptical of this response, sigh. I'm not sure how VF doesn't understand why CH responding to these rumors is different than BP not commenting on the Markle situation. For one thing, this directly involves Charles, Harry and William - I'm sure CH is disgusted with the media's being out for blood with regards to their relationship, almost seeming to want father and sons to be "on the outs". For another, BP is trying to protect Meghan; rebuking her father in the media will only encourage him as he laps up all the attention.


**This is pretty unusual behavior from the palace, and perhaps indicates that they take this sort of claim as a gravely serious matter. Though it seems interesting that they have refused to comment throughout the stressful Thomas and Samantha Markle saga, which has dominated headlines for so long, yet decided to comment on this report, which most would have taken with a grain of salt to begin with and which did not receive a great deal of traction (though now, thanks to the palace’s comment, it will receive a lot more!). Sometimes—as Kim Kardashian did when she commented on the Drake affair rumors this weekend—a strongly worded denial, especially from someone who doesn’t often deliver them, can naturally have the opposite of its intended effect: why is this the one story that you felt it necessary to debunk?***


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/09/prince-william-harry-charles-reported-feud-palace-comment
 
So this is apparently what's been said:

Clarence House told Express.co.uk the claims are “complete fiction.”

Hardly a response.
 
Omid and Emily are supposed to address some of the crazy rumors and articles about the BRF this coming Friday during their On Heir Podcast.


LaRae
 
Once again, it just shows that media (even Vanity Fair and Cosmopolitan) has absolutely no clue about how the BRF does things, which palace is associated with which royals among a lot of other misconceptions they may have.

No one does their homework anymore and now it seems like even the more respectable publications are depending on the tabloids for information. Go figure. :eek:
 
Osipi said:
Once again, it just shows that media (even Vanity Fair and Cosmopolitan) has absolutely no clue about how the BRF does things, which palace is associated with which royals among a lot of other misconceptions they may have.

No one does their homework anymore and now it seems like even the more respectable publications are depending on the tabloids for information. Go figure. :eek:
Click to expand...


Lazy, lazy reporting. Both of these mags didn't bother to do their own research, they just pretty much summarized what others said (others who seem to have an agenda, I think). When I was reading that, I was like "um, that's not the Palace", lol.
 
I wonder if the only reason that the Express got a response is because it probably has closer contacts with the CH press office. The Daily Beast sent an e-mail which is easier to ignore than a phonecall or message from someone known personally to the media team. The response is not exactly on the scale of Harry's letter to Meghan, in fact its hardly a response.
 
It is lazy reporting because a royal reporter should know which royal is associated with Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Buckingham Palace but at the same time it really makes no sense that there are three administrative / communications groups for the British Royal Family and IMO reflects relationship issues among members of the BRF. I certainly don't think that they hate each others guts but having separate offices is :ermm: :nonono::wacko::shifty:.
 
Last edited:
Betsypaige said:
All good points. I’ve seen many times the implication that Charles is impatient to be King - um, that means he would want his mother to die, which is just...no.
Click to expand...
Many, many, many years ago, well before the forums, an interviewer asked Prince Charles exactly that. Did it bother him that he had waited so many years and, with the longevity of QM, it looked like he'd be waiting a few more decades before he could become the king?

Charle's answer was that since his becoming king was dependent on the death of his mother, he was hardly in any hurry to see his mother die. It was a rare interview and perhaps explains Charles feelings pf intense antipathy towards royal correspondents and tabloid writers in general.

There was an incident could easily have given rise to some speculation and actually did. Somebody had the inspired notion that the Offices of BP, CH and KP should be consolidated to ensure that everyone was on the same page, knew what everyone else was doing and that communication from the BRF was all in sync. It was a miserable failure for no other reason than the people who ran those offices found it impossible to work together and were jockeying for positions of importance.

As to the VF wondering about a response from CH about the gossip and the lack of response regarding the 'Markle's', they had already answered their own question since they were questioning CH and know that KP is where they should expect to get a response.

I think they must be a little dim, the overwhelming sound of silence is deafening. Not even a "no comment".
 
That trial of the three Press Offices coordinating in 2014 was certainly a miserable failure, but can anyone remember when it was and why that the Prince of Wales decided to set up a different media unit for himself at St James Palace, where he was then living?

Was it as a result of the separation from Diana, the Mark Bolland years or what? Because once Prince Charles split from the BP operation and set up separate offices it was inevitable, IMO, that his sons would want to do the same. And that implies, I think, a certain mistrust of those aides like Bolland in charge at St James/Clarence House, by Charles's sons.
 
:previous: I think that it was before Mark Bolland, and while not explicitly stated, was probably related to the War of the Wales. I will try and find a source but IIRC it was something along the lines that Charles felt that he needed his own organization, separate from Buckingham Palace, to properly serve his needs.
 
Thanks Queen Claude. I've always been quite intrigued by Charles insisting that he wanted his own media unit separate from BP. And after all, it was that which started the three disparate offices, which do try and top each other.
 
Now HERE is an article worth reading......such a lovely piece. I really adore Charles' relationship with his sons, and I admit - I've always had a soft spot for Harry since he was a tiny lil red-headed scamp. I remember reading after the wedding that all - or most - of the ill-will that the public had toward Charles since last year (the 20th anniversary of Diana's death) pretty much melted away. From the way he walked Meghan down the aisle, to his tenderness with Daria......I think people saw people saw the real man, not the one demonized by some of the media.



After spending nearly a week of their summer holiday at Mey and a brief weekend at Balmoral with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the Sussexes have fallen in love with the country, much to the delight of the Queen and Prince Charles, who is hoping Harry and Meghan may want to get even more involved with the castle in the future. “I think Charles might want Harry, if he is interested, to oversee the operations of Mey when the time is right,” reveals a source.
Click to expand...


“The wedding was a real turning point,” the family member continues. “Charles showed so much love towards Harry and Meghan, and I think Harry will be eternally grateful to his papa for stepping in and giving Meghan’s hand in marriage. The bond between them is very close.”

According to the source, the trio spent evenings dining at the castle, reading, walking dogs, and talking. “Charles has been very supportive of Meghan and everything she is going through with her own father. He’s got a real soft spot for her and thinks she’s the best thing to have happened to Harry.”
Click to expand...

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/09/prince-charles-meghan-harry-relationship
 
According to most Royal reporters Harry and Meghan haven't been to Balmoral yet.

I also would never consider Katie a good source as she has been wrong countless times. I am also suspicious of this new Charles biographer that keeps popping up in articles lately. She keeps making unsubstantiated claimed about the Sussexes (their new dog is called Oz, her son has a dog that is a twin of Bogart - Meghan's old dog) while promoting her new Charles biography.

I have no doubt Charles' relationship with Harry and Meghan is wonderful and has strengthend especially due to all the challenges during the wedding but everything else seems much more conjecture.

The part about Harry looking after the Castle of Mey in the future simply because they spent a week there...seem more in line with the recent stories we've had of the Sussexes being gifted multiple homes since their wedding.
 
Last edited:
One thing we do know that is a fact is that the Castle of Mey will never be in the listing of potential properties for Harry and Meghan. In July 1996, The Queen Mother made the property, the policies, and the farm over to the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust, which has opened the castle and garden to the public regularly since her death. Charles is presently the president of the Trust and perhaps it would be a role that he may pass on to Harry.

I have no doubt that there is a warm relationship between Charles, Harry and Meghan and to be honest, I don't trust any report that comes out about their private relationships because they do whatever they can to keep it under the radar. Sometimes we'll get a glimpse but we'll never see the entire picture.
 
Osipi said:
One thing we do know that is a fact is that the Castle of Mey will never be in the listing of potential properties for Harry and Meghan. In July 1996, The Queen Mother made the property, the policies, and the farm over to the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust, which has opened the castle and garden to the public regularly since her death. Charles is presently the president of the Trust and perhaps it would be a role that he may pass on to Harry.

I have no doubt that there is a warm relationship between Charles, Harry and Meghan and to be honest, I don't trust any report that comes out about their private relationships because they do whatever they can to keep it under the radar. Sometimes we'll get a glimpse but we'll never see the entire picture.
Click to expand...

O/T question what would be the benefit of being the president of the trust in the future? other than keeping it in the family would there be any financial benefit to Harry?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Ingrid Seward's newest book on the British Royal Family "My Mother and I"
Replies
3
Views
1K
tommy100
T
Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
320
Somebody
Somebody
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators - British Royals Forum
Replies
0
Views
259
Marengo
Marengo
M
What is your personal favourite documentry on the british royal family?
Replies
6
Views
521
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
B
Secrets of The Royal Palaces Series 4 - 2023 - British Royal Documentary Series
Replies
1
Views
671
BarbieFR
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom