Van Cutsem Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
C

Chu-Chi

Commoner
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
44
City
Somewhere around here
Country
United States
Hello!! I was looking for more information about the Van Cutsem family...some articles that I have found states that Charles and Hugh have been friends since college but another says they no longer talk because of Camilla...does anyone know if they're back on speaking terms? And also are there 3 or 4 brothers?..I know Edward is the eldest and I have seen pictures of the younger Hugh's wedding...if anyone has more information it would be appreciated!! :)
 
There are four sons, Edward, Hugh jnr, Nick & William. No one has really said anything about the current state of the parents' relationship, but William & Harry remain friends with the sons.
 
One can compare them to the famous American Cushing and Langhorne sisters.

They are fringe society and relish their names in the papers. I am not impressed with them and feel sorry for Rose Astor and Lady Tamara for marrying beneath them.

I would compare them to Keven Federline and Dean Sheremet...marrying two VERY rich and famous women, Britney Spears and LeAnn Rimes, who happen the financial backbone of the marriage.

I had the displeasure of meeting one of them at a party in London....Edward. He seems to be VERY impressed with himself.

But that is typical attitude of a person who knows he can only go so far in high society.

The arrogance masks that..
 
Lady Tamara Wedding

Didn't she get married at Westmeinter(sp?) Abbey? I thought that this church was reserved for royal weddings and events. Can anyone explain this?
 
She got married at Chester Cathedral, not Westminster Abbey.
 
There was a huge falling out between the Van Cutsems and the Prince of Wales when Edward Van Cutsem got married. The Queen was going and so was the Prince of Wales - and Camilla (pre Duchess days). The Duchess of Westminster (the bride's mother) telephoned the Prince and said that she would have to seat him with the rest of the Royal Family and that Camilla would be on the other side of the church, furthur back. Protocol was the main reason and I believe another reason given was that Camilla was either closer to the Grosvenors or the Van Cutsems. Whichever family it was, it would mean that she'd be on the opposite side to Charles. Camilla is said not to have minded but Charles was furious and the rumour (about 90% confirmed) travelled like wild-fire along the grape-vine - that rumour being that the Duchess of Westminster had hurled abuse at Charles on the telephone saying that it wasn't his wedding and he'd have to sit where he was told. So Charles said he wouldn't go if Camilla wasn't allowed to sit with him. Camilla then cancelled and said she wouldn't be going either. So, Charles telephoned Emilie Van Cutsem and asked her to intervene. She wouldn't and so they had a falling out. When Hugh (jr) Van Cutsem got married, Charles and Camilla (then married) declined the invitation.

Now alot of that is hear-say and is what I've been told by various people so you're free to believe it or disbelieve it. :)
 
Last edited:
Elspeth said:
She got married at Chester Cathedral, not Westminster Abbey.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up for me.:)
 
BeatrixFan said:
There was a huge falling out between the Van Cutsems and the Prince of Wales when Edward Van Cutsem got married. The Queen was going and so was the Prince of Wales - and Camilla (pre Duchess days). The Duchess of Westminster (the bride's mother) telephoned the Prince and said that she would have to seat him with the rest of the Royal Family and that Camilla would be on the other side of the church, furthur back. Protocol was the main reason and I believe another reason given was that Camilla was either closer to the Grosvenors or the Van Cutsems. Whichever family it was, it would mean that she'd be on the opposite side to Charles. Camilla is said not to have minded but Charles was furious and the rumour (about 90% confirmed) travelled like wild-fire along the grape-vine - that rumour being that the Duchess of Westminster had hurled abuse at Charles on the telephone saying that it wasn't his wedding and he'd have to sit where he was told. So Charles said he wouldn't go if Camilla wasn't allowed to sit with him. Camilla then cancelled and said she wouldn't be going either. So, Charles telephoned Emilie Van Cutsem and asked her to intervene. She wouldn't and so they had a falling out. When Hugh (jr) Van Cutsem got married, Charles and Camilla (then married) declined the invitation.

Now alot of that is hear-say and is what I've been told by various people so you're free to believe it or disbelieve it. :)
Click to expand...

Thats dumb on his part because if she was really just fulfilling protocol that he should have respected that. I mean if the Queen would have not been there than fine he had the right to get mad but since she was Mrs. Van Cutsem had to fulfill with protocol and she would have be critisized if she didn't.
 
Camilla & Charles weren't invited to Hugh jnr's wedding because the family didn't want to deal with it.
 
Thanks to everyone for sharing your information with me!!
 
Thats dumb on his part because if she was really just fulfilling protocol that he should have respected that. I mean if the Queen would have not been there than fine he had the right to get mad but since she was Mrs. Van Cutsem had to fulfill with protocol and she would have be critisized if she didn't.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. But it seems that the Duchess of Westminster, (who I believe is still a Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen but hasn't been called upon for years) knew that the wedding was happening. As a form of Palace Staff, she would have been aware of the plans whether in the early stages or whether completed. So maybe this was a case of Prince Charles asserting early sniping at the wedding. But that could be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 9.
 
I felt that it was uncalled for by the Prince, myself. He knew his plans and since he can be a stickler for protocol when it is condusive for him, he should had understood. They should had announced their engagement earlier.
 
michelleq said:
I felt that it was uncalled for by the Prince, myself. He knew his plans and since he can be a stickler for protocol when it is condusive for him, he should had understood. They should had announced their engagement earlier.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was incidents such as this that galvanised him into action. Most people wouldn't stand idly by while their partner was subject to perceived insults. The obvious solution was marriage, and it happened soon enough after this unpleasantness.
 
I should imagine one of the question's Charles asked them at the time was, are you inviting me as a friend of many years standing, or the Prince of Wales?

If it was the former, at his request, he could have sat anywhere without it being seen as a breach of protocol.
 
I agree Skydragon. It's sad that they now don't speak with the VC or the Grosvenor's. But these things happen.
 
But to throw their friendship away just because where you were going to sit in church is just ridiculous. I bet he regrets it.
 
I disagree. He is a friend who happens to be the Prince of Wales. I also believe it was selfish not to attend your godson's wedding because your partner couldn't sit with you nor enter thru the same door. Your godson didn't create the situation. Also, the Queen was going to be in attendance and protocol is protocol. But Warren is correct, at least it caused him to correct the situation by formally marrying Camilla. And yes, its a shame the friendship had to end but perhaps they will reconcile in the future.
 
Is it true that the Van Cutsem Family are catholic? Because I heard someone say that they were.
 
Zonk1189 said:
I disagree. He is a friend who happens to be the Prince of Wales. I also believe it was selfish not to attend your godson's wedding because your partner couldn't sit with you nor enter thru the same door. Your godson didn't create the situation. Also, the Queen was going to be in attendance and protocol is protocol.
Click to expand...

I believe that he was right to stand up for the woman he loved. They could have sat together. They had I believe already agreed to arrive and leave separately.

As I said, it seems they were inviting him as the Prince of Wales and not as Charles, their friend of many years and that really does make you question whether their friendship was worth having in the first place!:rolleyes:
 
I see your logic Skydragon and I modify my opinion somewhat. Yes, this very well may had spurred Charles to marry Camilla sooner than later (we all knew he planned to marry her, didn't we?) But I still feel that Charles was sanctimonious for his behaviour. The four families have been friends for a very long time (Wales, Westminster, Van Cutsem and Parker-Bowles). With Her Majesty there, he should had made the sacrifice for a couple of hours. I am sure that the Westminsters and the Van Cutsem have helped Charles when he needed somewhere discreet to meet Camilla out of the public eye. It is a shame; hopefully they will be able to mend this rift.
 
Warren said:
Yes, but Hugh van Cutsem's wedding took place at Chester Cathedral in a CofE ceremony.
Click to expand...
Hugh van Cutsem married in Oxfordshire. Edward married in Chester. Both married Anglicans and in Anglican ceremonies, though I know there were Catholic officials at Edward's wedding (Hugh's didn't make enough headlines for that to get out) and the children will be raised Catholic.
 
With their wivess money to live on...both Ladies married socially beneath them.

I agree with Skydragon. The Prince of Wales should NOT have to make sacrifices like that to anyone.
 
They don't live off their wives. Edward, Tamara, Hugh and Rose all have jobs. Edward & Hugh work in finance, and Tamara and Rose seem to work in the literature field.
 
Charles behaved the way he usually does...like a spoilt brat!....sorry he is one member of the BRf that gets my hackles rising.

Stellad
 
I applaud the Prince of Wales for not bowing to that pressure. And yes, both Ladies married beneath them.
 
Well we must agree to disagree :)

Yes, prior to his marriage Camilla was his partner/companion and should have been treated with respect by friends/family (can't believe I am saying this!) and if Prince Charles was an ordinary man it would probably have not been a big deal sitting them together. But he is NOT. You can't have it both ways. And let's face it..if he really wanted them to sit together..he could have asked the Queen not to attend (not that would happen or she would agree) because that was the real reason for seating arrangements. correct?

Again, it did push him to formalize his relationship with Camilla so some good came out of the whole affair. And truthfully, if he had stuck up for her years ago (well..thats another thread). So I think he was selfish..it was a couple of hours to spend some time with his godson...which tells me that they don't have a relationship at all.
 
Last edited:
so what brought status into this, they married for love not the depth of their pockets, the business circle senior van custem must have introduced him into the upper class circles and thus their boys grew up with other upper class children and then they met thier wives, so what does it matter where you come from or who ypur ancestors are, and by the way you can still find working or middle class men smug of themselves and loving themselves it doesn't matter what class you are but your attitudes, and william and harry must like the boys to be friends with them, so please don't judge on what you don't know and with your prejudices intact
 
Camilla was actually being treated as Charles's wife for about 3 years prior to their marriage. She was living with Charles for most of the time and was certainly with him at weekends. Gyles Brandreth said that people were standing up and bowing to her etc, something that made her visibly uncomfortable so it was accepted both in whats left of high society and in the Royal Household. The Duchess of Westminster would have known the position but she couldn't bend the rules. But Skydragon is right - was she inviting Charles as a member of the Royal Family or as a friend? Or was she just inviting Camilla for the sake of having her there with Charles?

I think that Lady Marmalade is right - financially and class-wise, the girls did marry beneath them. I'm sure Lady M didn't mean that the marriage wouldn't work as a result but it's a fact that they did marry beneath them and I'm sure that money was an attractive reason for marrying although I doubt it was the only reason.

I don't think Charles has told William and Harry that they can't see the VCs or the Grosvenors but as a now married couple, he and Camilla have decided not to bury the hatchet and to keep relations cool and to a minimum which they're entitled to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
GD George Alexandrovich (1872-1899) - Nicholas II's brother
Replies
9
Views
3K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Spartica
The genealogy of the House of Valois
Replies
1
Views
4K
Countessmeout
Countessmeout
WreathOfLaurels
  • Locked
Non-British Royal Visits to New Zealand
Replies
12
Views
11K
WreathOfLaurels
WreathOfLaurels
WreathOfLaurels
King Constantine and The Dicatorship of the Colonels, 1967-1974.
2 3
Replies
70
Views
13K
WreathOfLaurels
WreathOfLaurels
Eruanna
Edward VI (1537-1553)
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom