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.
Except they didn’t say that. It was reported that way, but it’s not what they said. They said they *weren’t willing* let their thoughts or emotions out—that’s not the same as saying no one tryed to get them to do so or offered them the help they needed. I’m pretty sure Harry specifically said he had therapy right away but was uncooperative. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; along the same lines, you can get a grieving teen access to mental health specialists but you can’t make him participate in a meaningful way.

It’s quite telling that the thrust of their mental health campaign (which was the context for those interviews) isn’t about making therapy available so much as it is encouraging people to put aside their fear of talking and access the already available therapeutic resources, because they’re saying that they understand what it is to be too stubborn to participate but have also found that when you let down your guard things can get better. All that says to me that help *was* offered and they wish they’d taken it from the start.

Ah, that makes sense. Hopefully now that someone has pointed out their original words, posters would stop taking it the wrong way.

And yes, totally agree about the issue of timing. Of course the media and others have to sensationalize it for a particular narrative they want to paint. I keep thinking back to all the fury over how dare Harry say it was his brother that encouraged him to seek help in his late twenties as that’s a slight at his father when Harry didn’t mention anything about Charles. And him not mentioning Charles isn’t a slight at Charles. It simply is his moment where the lightbulb went on.
 
:previous: I thought this thread is about relationships between members of the British royal family, not the British royal family and the media, which thread is closed.
 
:previous: I thought this thread is about relationships between members of the British royal family, not the British royal family and the media, which thread is closed.

In this instance, some posters have formed their thoughts about what the relationships between certain family members are from articles written after interviews.

The articles were not accurate based on what W&H actually said in the filmed interviews, calling into question the idea of a fractured or poor relationship between W&H and their father as described in the articles.

Little was said about the media as an entity. It was about the relationships between W&H and Charles.
 
Last edited:
I think too that its wise to remember *why* those interviews happened. It was the time of W&H's mother's 20th anniversary of her death. They were being filmed to talk about their mother and the impact her death had on them. They weren't there to specifically talk about their father.

If I remember right, around the time of that anniversary, Charles himself was in Scotland. I believe he purposely removed himself at the time from the public eye so as to allow those that wished to remember Diana do so peacefully without his presence digging up old memories of what transpired in their marriage.

There was quite a bit of dredging up the negative and the blame game anyways. Andrew Morton released a 25th anniversary edition of his book on Diana that rocked the world in 1992.

The bottom line is that I believe, at this time, William and Harry were very, very careful to put the focus solely on their life with their mother. They weren't excluding their father but rather focusing primarily on their mother.

The media saw what they wanted to see anyways. They always do.
 
:previous: Agreed. I think it's awful that two boys can't remember one parent without it being seen as a diss to another parent. How would people like them to mention Diana during Charles' 70th birthday year? Does this mean they are dissing Diana? They've got two parents, and they should be able to honor both without being made to feel like they have to choose one parent over another.
 
:previous: Agreed. I think it's awful that two boys can't remember one parent without it being seen as a diss to another parent. How would people like them to mention Diana during Charles' 70th birthday year? Does this mean they are dissing Diana? They've got two parents, and they should be able to honor both without being made to feel like they have to choose one parent over another.
Harry DID mention his mother in the interview about Charles.

Charles was not mentioned in the interview about Diana.

I don't think that means they love one more than the other but it was a noticeable difference.
 
Last edited:
I think too that its wise to remember *why* those interviews happened. It was the time of W&H's mother's 20th anniversary of her death. They were being filmed to talk about their mother and the impact her death had on them. They weren't there to specifically talk about their father.

If I remember right, around the time of that anniversary, Charles himself was in Scotland. I believe he purposely removed himself at the time from the public eye so as to allow those that wished to remember Diana do so peacefully without his presence digging up old memories of what transpired in their marriage.

There was quite a bit of dredging up the negative and the blame game anyways. Andrew Morton released a 25th anniversary edition of his book on Diana that rocked the world in 1992.

The bottom line is that I believe, at this time, William and Harry were very, very careful to put the focus solely on their life with their mother. They weren't excluding their father but rather focusing primarily on their mother.

The media saw what they wanted to see anyways. They always do.

Completely agree! It would be different if Charles and Diana were still in love and married when she died but they weren't (though I believe they were starting to get to a better place in their post marriage relationship with each other) so they can't sit there talking about all the times "dad did this or that". Better to just focus on Diana and their relationship and memories of her and I think Charles was respectful of that and stayed out of it. If they had talked all about Charles then the media would have had a fit digging up the worst of the "War of the Wales", so W&H choose to focus solely on Diana...and the media make a fuss about that!
 
Let's move on please, we discussed those interviews that William and Harry made ages ago.
 
:previous: As we mature into adults our perspective on our lives changes and we see things through the eyes of an adult. The warmth of the relationship between Charles, Harry and Megan are beautiful to see. The gentle easy way Charles escorted Megan when he took her arm at the Quire and the look Harry and Charles share as her hands Meghan off speaks volumes about how they feel about each other. From my take, it seemed very comfortable and warm.
 
This article about the Duchesses was on the People website. No named sources, so take with a grain of salt. I took from it that there isn’t some big feud, but that they are different, strong women with different roles. Also that the natural evolution of marriage changes family dynamics and each is finding their own place is the monarchy.

 
Yesterday was a day spent reading more of "Our Queen" by Robert Hardman and in the segment I was reading, Andrew was quoted on questions asked of him about the family's dynamics. I found this part to be not only interesting but also informative. Its a great book and I recommend it.

"The constant issue is that there are more people speculating and trying to find out about our normality and reality than is sometimes healthy. The family life that we have had is as much of a family life as your family life. Its had its ups, its had its downs. Its had its good times, its bad times. That's the nature of the beast. And we make the most of family time that we can."
 
Posts discussing the Markles, posts about the media and posts engaging in back and forth bickering have been deleted. Let’s stick to the topic and please remember to be respectful of one another.
 
Cross-posting here from Lady Gabriella Windsor thread this comment and my response as it references royal family relationships:

... does that mean [Meghan and Harry have] forgiven Princess Michael for her Blackamore broach, if they don't does it mean they haven't/baby Sussex rumours etc.

The brooch worn by Princess Michael last December is surely the furthest thing from any one's mind in the royal family, so I don't think anyone's forgiveness was needed or offered. Also, I have no idea what you are referencing regarding 'baby Sussex rumors.'

Meanwhile, the brooch is not connected to the name you have termed it to be. Princess Michael was wearing a Moretto Veneziano made by Nardi, in Venice. There is a widely overlooked informative and enlightening article (published in January 2018) that describes the historical and cultural significance of the brooch, which I will link in the British Royal Jewels of the Past thread.

Regarding speculation about how Kate & Meghan get on, this is one of the more balanced and reasonable articles I've read, which appears to be an attempt to tone down the more exaggerated nonsense in check:
https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/73d47363aa2f749d611981b3def37fb9
 
Last edited:
Well no surprises....the DF and the tabloids have to come up with another "drama" story. It's what they do!
 
The Fail strikes again. Allegedly the queen and Charles ordered Kate and Meghan to put an end to their "feud"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-ordered-call-Christmas-Day-truce-Queen.html

As if two grown women were incapable of settling any differences, if there were any. Whoever is this palace "source", he/she did nothing but do damage to both women.
I truly do not believe for one minute that there is a palace source, just a jerk reporter and editor wanting to cause trouble and sell papers. Immoral people.
 
The Fail strikes again. Allegedly the queen and Charles ordered Kate and Meghan to put an end to their "feud"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-ordered-call-Christmas-Day-truce-Queen.html

As if two grown women were incapable of settling any differences, if there were any. Whoever is this palace "source", he/she did nothing but do damage to both women.

I don't know if I even believe there is a palace source. I don't put it past the DM to outright lie.
 
The Fail strikes again. Allegedly the queen and Charles ordered Kate and Meghan to put an end to their "feud"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-ordered-call-Christmas-Day-truce-Queen.html

As if two grown women were incapable of settling any differences, if there were any. Whoever is this palace "source", he/she did nothing but do damage to both women.

Actually the Fail achieved its goal. It got you to sit up and pay attention to it. They're not aiming for the royal ladies at all but to the people that eat this kind of thing up for breakfast and come back for more. ;)
 
Thoughts and opinions?

Now that articles are coming in about the Royals Christmas at Sandringham, i'm very interested in the assessments of members of this thread.

1) Camilla. Was she at Sandringham at all?
I have seen only one article that mentioned the arrival of the Prince of Wales this year, that article stated he arrived alone. No judgement to her. I would mostly definitely want to spend Christmas in the relaxed presence of children/grandchildren rather than with the Royals, myself.

2) Kate and Meghan seem to be doing quite well, from the video and pictures of the Christmas morning walk. Not BFFs, but quite cordial. Kate seemed very natural and at ease. Meghan a bit less so, more tense. That would be natural for someone still learning the traditions and how the holiday plays out.

3) Prince William and Prince Harry remained far apart with very little interaction Christmas morning. While Princess William seemed in normal form, Prince Harry did not seem his fun loving self, not much inclined to smile in the direction of Prince Charles or Prince William. It almost seems as if after always feeling comfortable, supported, accepted, and equal throughout his life a reality of being less, the constraints of the hierarchy inherent to this royal family is setting in a way that is not suiting well.

4) Interesting to see Prince Andrew so very assertively taking his place in the car with the Queen on return to the house. We also consistently see Prince Edward and family remaining physically closest and in company with the Queen throughout the year. These are places Phillip and Camilla have had the honor of before. Prince Andrew showed quite a "make way, make way, I'm coming through, I'm assigned to do this, and no wonder as I'm ever so important" feel, as he passes by everyone else to hightail it to the car.

5) What do the dynamics of spare brother heirs say?
Wondering if Prince Harry is now negotiating what Prince Edward has realistically managed, and Prince Andrew has been chaffed and somewhat resistant to accept for many years. Andrew is the first Prince of York who won't become King in three generations. The Queens two younger sons certainly have some choice Berkshire Crown Estate properties secured, fortunate timing for Prince Andrew in particular.
 
IMO, its next to impossible to analyze a family's dynamics just from a few pictures that were taken at the time of the Christmas morning service. I take the pictures at face value. They're a family going to church. They're somewhat doing a photo op for the public that waits for them every year but they're not scripting things or posing. They're being themselves on Christmas morning.

I think people go overboard trying to analyze these people psychologically from just a few snapshots in time.
 
LOL - yes I am afraid that we do make a mountain of a mole heap and a lot of a glance and smile.


Regarding Andrew walking to get into the car, he arrived with the Queen which we don't know the reason of, could really be anything - but when they were leaving he appeared to have forgot that he needed to leave with her - you can see the Queen , then Anne and then Edward all looking around for him. At one point even Tim Lawrence is gazing around and then Andrew comes through. Maybe he couldn't get through the family, but by then Beatrice was already moving into the car, resulting in Andrew standing in front of the bowing people when the car moves away. It was on the few times we have seen the Windsor's without regimental accuracy. So I guess that it was a spur of the moment decision for him to drive with the Queen .
 
I so often grin when I read the Fail's articles on the Royals, especially around christmas. Because no matter how many "sources" are claimed to exist, the base on each and any story is that the editors read books about human archetypes and archetypical interaction once. Since then, they simply push the Royals of every generation into an archetypical corset and imagine how this would turn out.



Eg the archetypical "couple" of the two sisters-in-law who are envious of each other with one destined to be the queen and the other married to an inferior of the king. Remember the Nibelungs? How Burgundy's princess Kriemhild and her sitser-in-law and queen Brunhild fought with all means, till Brunhild had Kriemhild's husband killed and Kriemhild destroyed her whole family to get her revenge. That's the base of the Catherine-Meghan-"conflict" the media writes about, not anything that did happen.



Or the faireytale meme of the "kind and unkind sisters" - Meghan and Samantha, anyone?



It is really fun to think about these ugly and invented stories this way. Value of the storyline in terms of truth? None.
 
Now that articles are coming in about the Royals Christmas at Sandringham, i'm very interested in the assessments of members of this thread.

1) Camilla. Was she at Sandringham at all?
I have seen only one article that mentioned the arrival of the Prince of Wales this year, that article stated he arrived alone. No judgement to her. I would mostly definitely want to spend Christmas in the relaxed presence of children/grandchildren rather than with the Royals, myself.

As stated in various other threads, Camilla has the flu and was unable to attend various engagements during the last few weeks.
 
Now that articles are coming in about the Royals Christmas at Sandringham, i'm very interested in the assessments of members of this thread.

1) Camilla. Was she at Sandringham at all?
I have seen only one article that mentioned the arrival of the Prince of Wales this year, that article stated he arrived alone. No judgement to her. I would mostly definitely want to spend Christmas in the relaxed presence of children/grandchildren rather than with the Royals, myself.

2) Kate and Meghan seem to be doing quite well, from the video and pictures of the Christmas morning walk. Not BFFs, but quite cordial. Kate seemed very natural and at ease. Meghan a bit less so, more tense. That would be natural for someone still learning the traditions and how the holiday plays out.

3) Prince William and Prince Harry remained far apart with very little interaction Christmas morning. While Princess William seemed in normal form, Prince Harry did not seem his fun loving self, not much inclined to smile in the direction of Prince Charles or Prince William. It almost seems as if after always feeling comfortable, supported, accepted, and equal throughout his life a reality of being less, the constraints of the hierarchy inherent to this royal family is setting in a way that is not suiting well.

4) Interesting to see Prince Andrew so very assertively taking his place in the car with the Queen on return to the house. We also consistently see Prince Edward and family remaining physically closest and in company with the Queen throughout the year. These are places Phillip and Camilla have had the honor of before. Prince Andrew showed quite a "make way, make way, I'm coming through, I'm assigned to do this, and no wonder as I'm ever so important" feel, as he passes by everyone else to hightail it to the car.

5) What do the dynamics of spare brother heirs say?
Wondering if Prince Harry is now negotiating what Prince Edward has realistically managed, and Prince Andrew has been chaffed and somewhat resistant to accept for many years. Andrew is the first Prince of York who won't become King in three generations. The Queens two younger sons certainly have some choice Berkshire Crown Estate properties secured, fortunate timing for Prince Andrew in particular.


1) Not sure if Camilla was at Sandringham at all, but I am inclined to believe that the reason that she did not appear at the church was to do with her cold and flu. It seems to have hit her badly this year, as she did not even attend the family lunch last week and missed an engagement later that week.

3) The focus was on the Duchesses and their interactions, the brothers were at the opposite ends of the foursome. If they had spoken to each other, it would:

a) have been a distraction from the Duchesses
b) have involved them speaking over the ladies!

4) Perhaps Andrew just had a bad cold himself and decided to go with the Queen in the car. After church, he probably just did not remember at first, and then could not get into position neatly and in time.

5) Who knows! However, it is clear that following the marriage, the hierarchy has probably become clearer, if there were any doubts beforehand.
 
Cross-posting here from Lady Gabriella Windsor thread this comment and my response as it references royal family relationships:



The brooch worn by Princess Michael last December is surely the furthest thing from any one's mind in the royal family, so I don't think anyone's forgiveness was needed or offered. Also, I have no idea what you are referencing regarding 'baby Sussex rumors.'

Meanwhile, the brooch is not connected to the name you have termed it to be. Princess Michael was wearing a Moretto Veneziano made by Nardi, in Venice. There is a widely overlooked informative and enlightening article (published in January 2018) that describes the historical and cultural significance of the brooch, which I will link in the British Royal Jewels of the Past thread.

I was making up the tabloid rumours for the day or run up to the day to show how even though Lady Ella is 51st in line she is quite well known and the press could get in on the action with gossip and speculation even though it will be a far more private day than Harry and Eugenie's weddings, in response to someone saying they doubted we would even hear anything about it. Nothing being said now and certainly baring no speculation on how they might actually be feeling:

"Plus (in the tabloids not directly related to the actual day) the comparisons to this year's weddings, plus "Are George and Charlotte going to be page boy/flower girl/little bridesmaid!" plus if Harry and Meghan attend does that mean they've forgiven Princess Michael for her Blackamore broach, if they don't does it mean they haven't/baby Sussex rumours etc."

The brooch may have a completely different name and meaning but to the press it was a "racist brooch" and considering all the nonsense being talked about at the moment, I can see it coming up again when speculating if they were going to attend. That also goes for "Baby Sussex rumours" which are fictional on my part since they aren't even born yet. Just doing the tabloids job for them.


Apologies for any confusion.
 
Last edited:
1) Not sure if Camilla was at Sandringham at all, but I am inclined to believe that the reason that she did not appear at the church was to do with her cold and flu. It seems to have hit her badly this year, as she did not even attend the family lunch last week and missed an engagement later that week.

3) The focus was on the Duchesses and their interactions, the brothers were at the opposite ends of the foursome. If they had spoken to each other, it would:

a) have been a distraction from the Duchesses
b) have involved them speaking over the ladies!

4) Perhaps Andrew just had a bad cold himself and decided to go with the Queen in the car. After church, he probably just did not remember at first, and then could not get into position neatly and in time.

5) Who knows! However, it is clear that following the marriage, the hierarchy has probably become clearer, if there were any doubts beforehand.




Primogeniture is inherent to the hereditary monarchies of Europe. I would be surprised if Harry had any wrong expectations about his and William's relative positions in the family when they grew up. Meghan, being an American who is not used to the concept of primogeniture, may have had misguided expectations and is now having to adjust to reality.
 
Last edited:
Prince Harry is on public record as saying "nobody wants to be king"! I think that he is very glad that he is not in the position of future king now.

Harry may have envied William when they were younger because William was treated as the more important sibling. I don't think that is the case now. He has a wife he loves, a child on the way, his own role as a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador and success with his own charities, especially the Invictus Games.

Prince Harry is a VERY happy man today! That is apparent!

As for Meghan, given the tabloid s**t that she's been put through recently, for all we know, she probably can't wait for the day that the focus will be more on the Cambridges than on her, Harry and their child/children. She has a husband who loves her, a child on the way and the opportunity to do her own charitable and humanitarian work. Meghan appears to be very content with her lot in life. And as an American, she may not even care less about the whole hierarchy BS as long as she knows where her place is in it all and acts accordingly.
 
Last edited:
It’s sad that the media have been trying to drive a wedge between these couples. Couples that are not only family, but the most senior branch and new face of the Monarchy. They’re not the Royal Fab Four for nothing. These couples will be working together for a very long time. So folks have to stop painting them as dueling couples. They’re a team. They’re also grown people, not kids.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure where people get the idea that Harry was envious of his brother being direct in line to the throne. Quite the contrary, I think he was relieved when the Cambridge children were born and basically ensured he won’t be king. He does have a lot more freedom compared to his brother. And I think that’s something that outweighs wearing the crown for Harry. Anybody who has been following the BRF would know that.

As for Meghan, I’m not sure where it indicates she didn’t understand the hierarchy? She seemed very clear on what she can do in her future role during the engagement interview. She wants to use her platform to do as much good as she can, but that’s about where it ends. And the fact that she has taken pains to blend in in her apparences with the family despite the constant attention that is on her.

I’m not sure how the hierarchy would’ve been clearer after marriage as I’m sure no one tried to hide where Harry was in line to the throne from her? Or a quick google search would’ve revealed everything anyways?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom