Queen Elizabeth as Monarch, Mother and Grandmother

[Nice Nofret]

... Even if she never became queen, she would have never had to worry about where her children would go to school, have jobs, how she could afford to pay her mortgage. She has done her job well and many people would have loved to do a job that had all the perquisites. She doesn't make any arrangement for trips, how she would get there, pack her own clothes. Her children, have inherited great wealth and power and live lives that suit them. No one is scrubbing floors. Her husband, possibly would not have married her, if she was not the heir. But she would have found someone. She seems to be a kind, decent woman and that is her inherent personality. I don't, beleive she has change life in this world for the better or the worse.

EII would have prefered to live the life of a lady in the country - all horses and such.
I doubt very much, that there are a lot of people in this world who would like to do such a highly-public representation-Job; allways open to critics from everybody.
I believe there are people out there who prefer srubbing floors to public speaking
DoE would have prefered her to be a lady in the country too - so he could have continued his career in the navy be the 'breadwinner' instead of beeing the sidekick.

And I'm very sure she changed the world a great deal with her work and tact and wisdome.

 

[Valerie Rose]

[re post #120] It is indeed a delightful photo! Thanks, AdmirerUS.

 

[roseroyal]

My favorite all time three generations photo: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/27/article-2477708-045012970000044D-527_634x555.jpg

The ladies, out for a ride together. Thanks to the DM for running this again today. You can count on them for photos.

Wonderful picture.

 

[cepe]

Was having a look around the Royal website and came across the page which explains her role. And on the same page was a 10 minute video (aimed at children) about what the Queen does. Very interesting as they used a child to act as "journalist".

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx

 

[scooter]

She's made sacrifices in her life but she's also been privileged in a way that the majority of us can only dream of, both in terms of wealth and status but also in terms of the people she's met, the places she's been and the role she's played as a world figure. I think Elizabeth, the person, has been fortunate enough to be inherently well suited to her role, in that she seems to be quite content to play the hand she's dealt and do what's expected of her, without over thinking things.

I don't believe she and Prince Philip would have had a drastically different family life if she hadn't been Queen. My impression is that their children's upbringing wasn't atypical when compared to that of their peers in the British upper class.

If you read Dimbleby's authorised biography of Prince Charles, Charles discribes his parents as being very cold and uninvolved when he was young (not sure how he would discribe it now as I think he was in a different 'place' in some ways when the book was written). I think at least some of that was due to the time constraints the role of Queen imposed on the role of Mother. Of course, Granny is a often different tone than Mother is, though they are the same person.

 

[Molly2101]

^^^ I think like you said Charles and Anne's childhood interactions with their parents were very different from those of Andrew and Edward. I think even Andrew or Edward have said this in interviews, and I think Charles finds that/found that hard to deal with. His upbringing was very traditional to that of a child of the Monarch, or one of an aristocratic family. Even Crown Prince Frederik mentioned that he was raised by nannies and rarely saw his parents. I think the Queen made a choice to spend more time with Andrew and Edward. She referred to Edward as "my baby", and Andrew is said to be her favourite. I think she enjoyed her time as a mother to them as she could appreciate it.

 

[Osipi]

If you read Dimbleby's authorised biography of Prince Charles, Charles discribes his parents as being very cold and uninvolved when he was young (not sure how he would discribe it now as I think he was in a different 'place' in some ways when the book was written). I think at least some of that was due to the time constraints the role of Queen imposed on the role of Mother. Of course, Granny is a often different tone than Mother is, though they are the same person.

I'm going to have to agree with you on this point. I've read the Dimbleby book and the contrast between his perception of his parents then as opposed to the documentary Charles did on his life with his "mama" in the Diamond Jubilee year was quite different.

At the time of the Dimbleby book, Charles was going through some major changes in his life and if he is anything like countless other humans I've known (including me), when things are bad we search for a reason and its relatively common to look to how you were raised to perhaps find a clue.

At the time of the Queen's diamond jubilee, Charles' life had smoothed out. He was happy, older and wiser perhaps. A quarter of a century almost had passed and Charles took on more and more of duties his mother has. From the perspective he has now, I think he can honestly look impartially at his parents.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Just a thought that came to mind.

Elizabeth and Charles (particularly during the 1990s) haven't always had the best parent-child relationship which had became common among the monarch and heir in recent generations

It is a Hanoverian that started with King George I and was carried over through the generations to this day. The oldest son (or heir) has a at times a difficult relationship with their parents (mainly the parent who is Monarch. And the parent doesn't always trust the child (heir) and they at times quarrel and the relations at times become strained. And parents have been said to be shy and distance from their kids which may have made them seem cold.

Although George VI and Elizabeth were close and never had problems (maybe because George VI was the monarch and his daughter was heir?) Charles and William have a good relationship same with Edward VII and George V.

George I and his Son
George II and his son Frederick
George III and his sons
Victoria and Edward VII
George V and Edward VIII

King George V kids did love their father but were said to be frighten of him. Same with Edward VII kids.

George V once said:
"My father was frightened of his mother; I was frightened of my father, and I am damned well going to see to it that my children are frightened of me"

Some were better then other and some got better but some were always strained.

 

[muriel]

Just a thought that came to mind.

Elizabeth and Charles (particularly during the 1990s) haven't always had the best parent-child relationship which had became common among the monarch and heir in recent generations

It is a Hanoverian that started with King George I and was carried over through the generations to this day. The oldest son (or heir) has a at times a difficult relationship with their parents (mainly the parent who is Monarch. And the parent doesn't always trust the child (heir) and they at times quarrel and the relations at times become strained. And parents have been said to be shy and distance from their kids which may have made them seem cold.

Although George VI and Elizabeth were close and never had problems (maybe because George VI was the monarch and his daughter was heir?) Charles and William have a good relationship same with Edward VII and George V.

George I and his Son
George II and his son Frederick
George III and his sons
Victoria and Edward VIII

King George V kids did love their father but were said to be frighten of him. Same with Edward VII kids.

George V once said:
"My father was frightened of his mother; I was frightened of my father, and I am damned well going to see to it that my children are frightened of me"

Some were better then other and some got better but some were always strained.

I suspect the issues you raise about parent-child relationships can be seen n other situations as well, especially where parent and child have to work together (e.g., family businesses).

As regards George VI and Elisabeth, I suspect George died when Elisabeth was only 25, so long before any of these issues can really grate in the work place.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Charles' mother was the King's daughter.
How could Princess Elizabeth have been expected to look after a baby all by herself?
Two Scottish nurses, Helen Lightbody and Mabel Anderson, were hired.
Circumstances occurred that Elizabeth had royal duties and obligations. As Queen she had a six-month world tour.
She may not have been at every family event for Charles and Anne.
However, Elizabeth was and is a marvelous mother.
​

 

[Al_bina]

I think you are right. She has lived an, extremely, privileged life. Even if she never became queen, she would have never had to worry about where her children would go to school, have jobs, how she could afford to pay her mortgage. She has done her job well and many people would have loved to do a job that had all the perquisites. She doesn't make any arrangement for trips, how she would get there, pack her own clothes. Her children, have inherited great wealth and power and live lives that suit them. No one is scrubbing floors. Her husband, possibly would not have married her, if she was not the heir. But she would have found someone. She seems to be a kind, decent woman and that is her inherent personality. I don't, beleive she has change life in this world for the better or the worse.

I fully agree with your opinion.

 

[Josefine]

Has there Ever been a health scare for the queen. I cant remember one.

 

[Roslyn]

"We would like our son and daughter to grow up as normally as possible so that they will be able to serve you and the Commonwealth faithfully and well when they are old enough to do so. We believe that public life is not a fair burden to place on growing children. I’m sure that all of you who are parents will understand.”

Really?! I wouldn't read very much into this and I do not think that what HM said in 1958 should be extrapolated to 2015 conditions, and for various reasons.

Her comments should be read in context: firstly, as to the sort of media involvement there had been in the life of the Royal Family up to that time; secondly, as to what was technologically possible in 1958 compared with 2015; and, thirdly, in the context of her own experiences both as a child and as a mother.

The Royal Family had had very limited exposure to the media up till then, and it was strictly controlled and very formal. Limited technology was partly responsible but so was the public's attitude to Royalty. At that time they were far more highly regarded than they are now, and by a wider proportion of the public. Any TV appearance at that time would have been very staged and brief and hardly reveal anything sensational about them. Nothing remotely "natural" would come for another decade.

On to personal context. Elizabeth's first two children were 10 and 8 at the time their loving, caring, concerned, mother said those words. (And, yes, I am being sarcastic.)

Their mother: the woman who elected to leave her little son in England with his grandparents shortly after his first birthday so she could go off to Malta and spend her second wedding anniversary with her navy officer husband. And when she arrived back in England she first spent a week in London and went to the races to see one of her horses run, before she went to see her child, from whom she had now been parted for five weeks, including Christmas!

And this is the same woman who chose to stay at Sandringham with her husband rather than spend it with their young son celebrating his fifth birthday in London in November 1953. To make it worse, this was only nine days before they left for the six month Commonwealth tour and did not even see their children again until the following April. And remember the reunion photo? The one where the loving mother formally greeted the son from whom she had been separated for five months with a gloved handshake?!

Her Majesty did not face the same struggles for privacy that are faced by William and Kate. She had total control. She just had to say "no", and everyone backed away, bowing and scraping as they went.

 

[royal rob]

I look at that photo where she shakes Charles hand and think how could a mother do that. So glad for your post.
IMO she has been a great Queen but not a great or caring mother.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[HRHHermione]

I look at that photo where she shakes Charles hand and think how could a mother do that. So glad for your post.
IMO she has been a great Queen but not a great or caring mother.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

And I look at that photo and see people who were raised not to show personal feelings in public... Not showing personal feelings in public.

If she had rushed to him and grabbed him in a giant hug, press at the time would have speculated about whether a woman who so clearly preferred to be a mother could handle spending time away from her family.

There is literally no winning there.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[royal rob]

Sorry can't agree with you mothers hugged and loved their children back then. It has always been a sad photo and I remember my mother telling me about it and saying how her and her friends were shocked at her leaving her children for so long and then greet him like that. In fact she made excuses for his behavior later on because he didn't have a loving mother. ( her words )


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

And I look at that photo and see people who were raised not to show personal feelings in public... Not showing personal feelings in public.

If she had rushed to him and grabbed him in a giant hug, press at the time would have speculated about whether a woman who so clearly preferred to be a mother could handle spending time away from her family.

There is literally no winning there.

"Preferred to be a mother"? Would the press really have speculated in that fashion about a woman who had just spent five months away from her children?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Introducing their child/ren to the press and public engagements from an early age and thus making them comfortable with their future roles is hardly a "child actor model". It clearly works for them as all the royal child/ren I can imagine you are referring to are happy, well-rounded and greet photographers and the public with a smile.

I have no doubt that William and Catherine too think their way works for them and that's really what matters, isn't it? No one is more fit to judge how William and Catherine's children cope best with the press than William and Catherine themselves – that goes for all royal parents. I trust that all of them use the model that suits their children the best.

Excellent response, Archduchess Z.

What plays well in Britain might not play in Denmark or Sweden at all. From what I can see, the current crop of Royal children seem exceptionally happy and well adjusted. The Belgian Royal children come immediately to mind. Their parents seem to have done a superb job of balancing a "normal" upbringing/childhood for their four children with an awareness of who they are as members of the BRF.

All child actors should turn out so well.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Excellent response, Archduchess Z...
All child actors should turn out so well.

I get the wink. But I also think one major difference with kid actors is that they end up supporting the family. At least in Royal Families that's not a burden for the kids alone. I do think it can make a huge difference in development.

 

[Osipi]

One thing to remember also in comparing different royal children is that the only thing they basically have in common is that they are children. Perhaps there is a need and good reason for Estelle of Sweden to learn to be adjusted in a public role as she is basically in the same position that William is. She will become Crown Princess and heir to the throne a whole lot sooner than George will (barring any unfortunate events).

 

[mammacats]

Honeybees @918

I saw that photo just a couple of minutes ago, and it just made me so sad thinking about what might have been. It was a bittersweet photo, meant well by whomever did it. Honestly, I liked it. I think Diana would have been a good grandmother to those babies and they would be lucky to have her.

 

[MARG]

And I look at that photo and see people who were raised not to show personal feelings in public... Not showing personal feelings in public.

If she had rushed to him and grabbed him in a giant hug, press at the time would have speculated about whether a woman who so clearly preferred to be a mother could handle spending time away from her family.

There is literally no winning there.

"Preferred to be a mother"? Would the press really have speculated in that fashion about a woman who had just spent five months away from her children?

Sorry can't agree with you mothers hugged and loved their children back then. It has always been a sad photo and I remember my mother telling me about it and saying how her and her friends were shocked at her leaving her children for so long and then greet him like that. In fact she made excuses for his behavior later on because he didn't have a loving mother. ( her words )

Yes, they expected no less of HM than they would from a King and so, because travel was faster even than in her father's early reign, the Queen was expected to tour the Commonwealth and basically act as a King.

Did they require more from the Queen? You bet your booties! You have to remember that at that time even some senior members of parliament and Peers (who treated their own daughters as featherbrained), were engaged in maneuvers to bring back dear old David back as Regent when HM father was obvious near death, regardless of the fact that Elizabeth was an adult. More than a few wanted her to fail.

They thought women didn't have the intelligence or temperament to carry such a load. They were there to run the house (servants of course) and grace the table with the family jewels when required. They weren't terribly bright (no university for the majority, just finishing school) and were all destined to be wives.

Were Elizabeth's first few years harder? I believe so. IMO they conveniently overlooked their own history, namely the Reign of both Elizabeth I and Victoria, not to mention a few, more than decorative, consorts.

I don't see anyone thinking less of Philip because he didn't act as a normal, emotional "mother" at the same time as Elizabeth was acting like a King or normal "father" of those times. Funny that.

It all comes down to context and we cannot apply the societal mores of the noughties to the 1950's.

 

[hernameispekka]

Yes, they expected no less of HM than they would from a King and so, because travel was faster even than in her father's early reign, the Queen was expected to tour the Commonwealth and basically act as a King.

Did they require more from the Queen? You bet your booties! You have to remember that at that time even some senior members of parliament and Peers (who treated their own daughters as featherbrained), were engaged in maneuvers to bring back dear old David back as Regent when HM father was obvious near death, regardless of the fact that Elizabeth was an adult. More than a few wanted her to fail.

They thought women didn't have the intelligence or temperament to carry such a load. They were there to run the house (servants of course) and grace the table with the family jewels when required. They weren't terribly bright (no university for the majority, just finishing school) and were all destined to be wives.

Were Elizabeth's first few years harder? I believe so. IMO they conveniently overlooked their own history, namely the Reign of both Elizabeth I and Victoria, not to mention a few, more than decorative, consorts.

I don't see anyone thinking less of Philip because he didn't act as a normal, emotional "mother" at the same time as Elizabeth was acting like a King or normal "father" of those times. Funny that.

It all comes down to context and we cannot apply the societal mores of the noughties to the 1950's.

Exactly. William talked about that in an interview, how she was a young woman in a mans world and how she had to work even harden than a man would have had to, just to be accepted.

 

[HRHHermione]

Exactly. William talked about that in an interview, how she was a young woman in a mans world and how she had to work even harden than a man would have had to, just to be accepted.

And that's exactly what I meant with my post about how the press would have speculated had she shown obvious emotion at being reunited with her children- there would have been sexist speculation about whether she could handle being Queen and being a mother at the same time. (A standard that's rarely applied to men even now, and certainly wasn't back then- kids were seen as almost solely a woman's job)

I think she didn't show emotion in that moment because she was still in front of the press and doing her job- not because she was actually a cold or bad mother.

 

[Grandma828]

And I think that is exactly the reason why HM is giving Catherine time to be a Mother.

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

Thank you! I always loathed how Elizabeth was written off as cold and heartless mother after this scene.
And wow I didn't knew about this plot..

 

[Osipi]

Another thing to remember about this time is that in the aristocratic and noble families, it was more the rule than not that children should be seen and not heard. Many parents had little or no part in the upbringing of their children and it was left to governesses and nannies.

Since being involved here at TRF and reading the threads, there have been pictures that have been posted of HM and her children in very warm and loving interactions. Just the presentation that Charles gave during his mom's Diamond Jubilee shows a very loving and warm mother.

 

[royal rob]

Re all the excuses for the Queens cold and formal greeting with her son after 6 months away. Why didn't she meet him in a private setting ? How any mother could not want to throw their arms around their child is beyond me. I am not even going start on PP.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[MARG]

Because travel was slow and liners leaving or arriving back was a big deal. It was an event in itself and let's be honest, long before she disembarked, Prince Charles like any boy of his age, was looking at a beautiful ship come in.

I'm not sure I understand your insistence that HM was a cold mother, and old family photos seem to say something different, but that's what this board is for.

 

[Osipi]

The more I've thought about this, the more I'm leaning towards the belief that HM, The Queen was greeting her son and being in Queen mode, it was never too young to start Charles off on the ways and means of protocol when out and about in public. He wasn't that much older than when he sat in a crowded Westminster Abbey and watched his mother being crowned Queen.

From what we've seen from private family pictures and videos that have made their way into the public domain, there were a lot of fun times as a family and a closeness that that most families share. One would only have to look at Charles' face as he presented the early years in the Diamond Jubilee presentation he put together to realize what fond memories he did have from growing up.

Was the Queen cold? I don't believe so. Was the Queen proper and dignified when in the public eye and in "Queen mode"? Most certainly.