Relationships of Prince Charles and His Parents

[Osipi]

I found Charles' tribute to his "mama" very touching and heartfelt. He didn't try and hide the emotions he felt as he reminisced about his childhood.

A point was brought up as to why the clips shown were primarily of him and Anne and none with his younger brothers. I think the reason being for this is because it was Charles sharing his memories as a young lad and with Anne being so close in age, they were together in a lot of things. By the time Andrew and Edward came along, Charles for the most part was away at school. I'm sure there are memories he has of all of them doing things, but I think this documentary was primarily focused on his memories of his parents as a young prince.

Like most children too, Charles had relatives that were close to him that were not the parents. Sometimes parenting gets in the way to being a close confidante of a child. Perhaps Charles was too introverted and sensitive by nature to identify with his father who always seemed to be the ruler of the family roost and believed in discipline and self sacrifice? Perhaps with growing up in a aura of deep tradition and history put him in more awe of his mother than most children do? I don't think it says anything negative about Charles' parenting but it may give a clue to why he found such comfort in his grandmother and his Uncle Dickie.

Today I can see strengths from all of the major influences in Charles' life reflected in the man that he is. There's a bit of Philip in him when he makes a witty quip to the press ("they've been practicing long enough") and his love for nature, a bit of HM in how he conducts himself in his mannerisms and being a stickler for perfection and propriety. I see Granny in him when he looks so at home in his beloved Scotland and to Uncle Dickie, I would attribute putting into practice his motto "Ich Dien" (I Serve).

A myriad of people make us who we are today by their influences in our lives. This inner glimpse into Charles' memories of his mama and his family life was exquisitely done and I think was the most personal glimpse into the private life of the BRF I've seen to date.

 

[vkrish]

Hey I have poste just ahead of you..Can u tel me wat u think of my post..Especially the last portion..

 

[COUNTESS]

While I do not doubt that QEII has been a very dutiful queen, she has never seemed like a very warm person. From bios and pictures throughout her life, the only one she has seemed to show any kind of affection is her husband. She does not come through as the mothering type and had she been from my generation (30-35) I think she would have chosen not to have children and focused on her carreer. That is ofcourse difficult when you have to ensure the continuation af the monarchy, but neverthrless my humble opinion. I think she could have been quite satisfied with just sharing her life with Philip. It is not that she doesn't love her kids, they have not/are just not her priority. It is very telling that her sons has chosen very maternal women as mothers of their own children.

I, belive, you have made a very wise and astute observation. She was raised to be distant and she is. I think in these latter years, she is warmer to her grandchildren. But her children, were in a different position. One of the things that made Diana such a terrible wife for Charles is that she didn't mother him. She was a very good mother, to her children, but she just wanted to be a wife to her husband and she needed his support. They both needed mothering.

 

[olebabs]

Hey I have poste just ahead of you..Can u tel me wat u think of my post..Especially the last portion..

I tend to agree with you. I for one do not believe the whole "Grandmother to the Nation" picture of the Queenmother.

 

[Grandma828]

I am old enough to remember when HM got married and when she had Charles and Anne. She was very much a hands on Mother until she became Queen at such an early age. I believe she found it very difficult to blend her queen role with her mother role. I can remember pictures of her having the children brought to her study as she did her boxes, and of her sitting on the floor playing with them. If you paid attending to Charles' tribute to his mother, there were pictures of her playing with him and getting him to walk. That was before she became queen. Give the woman credit for being a working mother and doing the best she knew how. At that time, not too many women had careers and she had to find her own way. Ask any career woman how hard it can be. The women that I knew that worked always felt they were cheating their kids, but most did not feel like they had the option to quit. Some for money reasons, others for their own mental health. HM did not have that choice at all.

 

[Osipi]

I tend to agree with you. I for one do not believe the whole "Grandmother to the Nation" picture of the Queenmother.

I think when Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon married her Bertie and started a family, as the Duke and Duchess of York, they had a very close knit family albeit a very aristocratic one. During WWII when suggested that the Queen and her daughters go to Canada for safety, the reply was something like "My daughters will not go without me. I will not go without the King and the King will never leave his people". She also commented on BP being bombed that she could now look the East End of London in the eye. She was a very stalwart, straight shooting and dignified woman who was the matriarchial rock of the family.

When her Bertie died in '52 and her daughter became Queen, I think the QM was irreplaceable to her daughter and its been said several places that throughout the Queen's reign, there was hardly a day that passed where HM wasn't in touch with her mother. Even in the long years of Elizabeth's II's reign, I believe that family wise, it was still the Queen Mum that was the true matriarch of that family.

 

[olebabs]

I am old enough to remember when HM got married and when she had Charles and Anne. She was very much a hands on Mother until she became Queen at such an early age. I believe she found it very difficult to blend her queen role with her mother role. I can remember pictures of her having the children brought to her study as she did her boxes, and of her sitting on the floor playing with them. If you paid attending to Charles' tribute to his mother, there were pictures of her playing with him and getting him to walk. That was before she became queen. Give the woman credit for being a working mother and doing the best she knew how. At that time, not too many women had careers and she had to find her own way. Ask any career woman how hard it can be. The women that I knew that worked always felt they were cheating their kids, but most did not feel like they had the option to quit. Some for money reasons, others for their own mental health. HM did not have that choice at all.

I absolutely give her credit as a working mother, but that does not changes my opinion. As you said she had no choice but to have children and to be queen, but that does not make her a maternal woman. Which is also OK and not meant as a critiscism, but as an observation and possible explanation to the distant relationship with esp POW

 

[Grandma828]

Somehow I get the feeling that she was more maternal than people suspect. As you see her with her grandchildren she seems to care very much and a person's personality does not change as you age. Usually, someone who does not enjoy children only gets worse as they age, not better. I just think it was mostly her job. Besides, why would she go on to have Andrew and Edward so much later when she had already produced on heir.

 

[Artemisia]

Based on the footage Prince Charles shared (commemorating the Queen's Jubilee), I would never call the Queen a distant mother. On the contrary, she appeared to have been as loving and involved as was possible in her situation, when duty always had to come first.

Prince Charles childhood home video - YouTube

 

[Osipi]

Based on the footage Prince Charles shared (commemorating the Queen's Jubilee), I would never call the Queen a distant mother. On the contrary, she appeared to have been as loving and involved as was possible in her situation, when duty always had to come first.

Prince Charles childhood home video - YouTube

You know, the more I think about it, the more the "family movies" that Charles allowed the world to see disproves the rumor of the Queen being a distant mother and all else.

It makes me realize that back when Charles and Anne were little ones, the private lives of the BRF were still shrouded in mystery. What family life we did get a glimpse into never at any time detracted from the Queen having an aura of majesty and regal bearing. The press actually had respect for the royal family and their private times remained private.

What I thought watching the videos that Charles was commentating on of his childhood was that those people in the clips could be any family and their own home movies. This is what makes what Charles shared with us all so extraordinarily special. It gave us a look at family without the royal adjective before it.

 

[camelot23ca]

I absolutely give her credit as a working mother, but that does not changes my opinion. As you said she had no choice but to have children and to be queen, but that does not make her a maternal woman. Which is also OK and not meant as a critiscism, but as an observation and possible explanation to the distant relationship with esp POW

I think she may seem distant if she's compared to the popular ideal we have of middle class/upper middle class mothers today. The fair comparison, though, would be between Elizabeth and her peers. I guess the closest thing she would have to peers would be women of the British aristocracy raising children in the 50s and 60s and I suspect her attitude to raising children would be much closer to the norm when viewed within the context of this group.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think she may seem distant if she's compared to the popular ideal we have of middle class/upper middle class mothers today. The fair comparison, though, would be between Elizabeth and her peers. I guess the closest thing she would have to peers would be women of the British aristocracy raising children in the 50s and 60s and I suspect her attitude to raising children would be much closer to the norm when viewed within the context of this group.

And of course today the model is working mothers sending their children off to day care first thing in the morning, picking them up at the end of the work day, exhausted mothers and fathers getting meals etc and putting the kids to bed. Now we talk about quality time with our children versus quantity of time with children.

 

[Daria_S]

I think calling Her Majesty a 'distant mother' is a bit harsh. In reality, we really don't know how she brought up her children on daily basis, and have no way of knowing what went on, and what didn't. However, any mother who makes time to come and see her children during bath time while also trying to make preparations for her Coronation is anything but 'distant' in my eyes. I think anyone of us would be overwhelmed if we were handed her destiny, along with young children and a relatively new husband, and she was no different. People tend to forget that she's only human, and not Wonderwoman, so yes, she's bound to put something on the back burner while trying to figure out her own wisdom in balancing her life and work. We should also remember that every child is different, and reacts differently to major changes in his/her life. I have no doubt that Prince Charles was overwhelmed as well, and maybe even missed his 'Mama' when she had to spend long hours taking care of state business and relatively short time playing with him after her accession and Coronation. That alone may have influenced him in feeling as if he were being abandoned, and since he was so young (only four/five years old), he may not have been able to really put words to his feelings at the time, but was able to label them when he got older. I think, generally speaking, Her Majesty likes children. It's visible from her interactions with her own children and grandchildren, as well as with the ones that greet her at various engagements. If she had a chance, she would probably have no issues reading books on a 'Story-Time Rug' in a nursery school classroom. I remember when she visited a nursery school last February, and the kids were showing her their reading nook, which looked like a castle. The smile on her face was full of delight, and I swore I could see a twinkle in her eye, which indicates to me that she really wanted to get into that nook and read a few fairy tales .

 

[camelot23ca]

And of course today the model is working mothers sending their children off to day care first thing in the morning, picking them up at the end of the work day, exhausted mothers and fathers getting meals etc and putting the kids to bed. Now we talk about quality time with our children versus quantity of time with children.

I was thinking more of the expectation that today's parents will be overwhelmingly involved in the minutiae of their childrens' lives, so as to attempt to protect them against every conceivable danger or moment of unpleasantness, (bullies, kidnappers, mediocre colleges, any form of nut product, etc), but I guess my overall point was that what's considered normal and ideal changes according to time and place. I'm sure some child rearing practices that seem obvious and ideal to our society today will seem ridiculous to people fifty years from now.

 

[NGalitzine]

I was thinking more of the expectation that today's parents will be overwhelmingly involved in the minutiae of their childrens' lives, so as to attempt to protect them against every conceivable danger or moment of unpleasantness, (bullies, kidnappers, mediocre colleges, any form of nut product, etc), but I guess my overall point was that what's considered normal and ideal changes according to time and place. I'm sure some child rearing practices that seem obvious and ideal to our society today will seem ridiculous to people fifty years from now.

I understand your point. My mother used to laugh whenever she heard about new parenting practices and rules saying "its a wonder any of you survived to adulthood", although given that my eldest brother is 19 yrs older than me I am sure she made some adjustments over time. I also recall a piece on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago about the current generation entering the workforce being the most coddled and over protected in history. A Fortune 500 CEO used an example of a mother coming to the office and complaining that little Johnnies performance review wasn't good enough and needed to be redone. I would have fallen through the floor had my mother ever come to the workplace let alone complained to my boss about anything.

 

[Alpa]

It is very hard to tell how people are in private when you only see them in public, when their role forces them to be guarded all the time.

I think these family films may well be the first time we’ve ever had access to absolutely genuine material about how they interacted which each other : it is neither a film which they knew was going to be broadcast (like the royal family film in 1969), nor a documentary based on other people’s recollection. It was absolutely never meant to be made public.

What they show is that the Queen and Prince Philip at least did try to spend some quality time with their children, have fun and give them happy childhood memories, the way “normal” families do, without formality. I didn’t expect to see Prince Philip cycling in a tiny bicycle, or sliding down a toboggan on Britannia! (That last scene oddly reminded me of the one with Princess Diana, William and Harry at a theme park). The kids did wear jeans, were allowed to get all wet, got buried in the sand, ... The Queen may not be seen taking an active part in this, but for a “distant mother”, she has spent quite a lot of time sticking photos into albums and making films (I guess no one has any doubt on who is behind the camera when you see the corgis on screen!).

These films did change my vision of the Queen and Prince Philip as parents, and in quite a good way. As Prince Philip once said : they “tried to do their best”, even if that doesn’t mean they always succeeded.

 

[BellaFay]

But still she pushed him to that side..just to counteract Mountbatten..
I know its very easy to blame someone in hindsight.

Actually it was the Queen's idea to match-make by inviting Diana up to Balmoral in late August 1980 not the Queen Mother. See Ben Pimlott's authorised biography of the Queen (circa 1998). That's why she dragged her feet so much before agreeing to Charles divorcing Diana in 1996.

 

[AdmirerUS]

As Prince Philip once said : they “tried to do their best”, even if that doesn’t mean they always succeeded.

I also think this has something to do with the nature of the child. Each of the children in a family sees their mom and dad differently - at least this is true in my family and seems true of the Windsors. No one is at fault - it happens because we all have our own personalities, proclivities, sensitivities and strengths.

Parents do tend to reinforce what they want to see in themselves and tend to not reinforce the rest. In this family - honor and duty was clearly a value drilled in to the kids - but like all families - the drilling eased with each child. Yet another reason each of these siblings react to the world so differently.

 

[nascarlucy]

The parenting style back in the 1950's and 1960's was very different than today. What would have been considered distant today would be considered the norm back in the day.

When Queen Elizabeth came to the throne back in 1952, there was no booklet or manual which told one how to combine being a Queen and a working mother. There probably wasn't anyone she could talk to who could relate to this (not many women in history have been both monarch and mother). Throughout history most women have been the supporting role of the monarch (wife of the monarch, mother to his children).

The Queen has a maternal side which is more private and then there is the monarch role which is a very different role. In more recent times she has showed the maternal side with her grandchildren. Being a mother and being a grandmother are two separate roles.

Some of the parenting today would be consider babying you're children or coddling them too much. I would have wanted to crawl in a hole and never come out if my mother had called a potential employeer and asked about the job interview. Or if she called and complained about an job review I received. That just wasn't done back in the 1980's.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Nascarlucy - I agree completely. Now imagine how hard it would be to have your Mom train you from childhood for the job you would hold - knowing the only way you would get that job would be for her to die. It's really creepy and depressing on its premise. While Charles in not the royal I would pick to sit next to at a dinner party, I do understand why he seems so burdened.

That would make a good forum - which royal would you want to sit next to at a dinner Party and why? Or which royal would you most like to speak with your children and why?

 

[COUNTESS]

Actually, it is Charles who used "distant" in his biography. He felt these things, you can debate your heads off, as to what is distant or not. It is Charles who made the claim in his "Offcial Biography", that his parents were not warm. It is what he felt, not what we think. Camilla filled that bill from the get go.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I used to buy into the idea that EnP were cold parents. But if u have 4 kids and 3 of them think u did a good job I tend to think thats a success.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Princess Anne said the same thing Prince Charles said in describing their childhood. They were not the priority. The press took is as Princess Anne had a lonely childhood & Prince Charles was complaining about his ’neglectful’ mother. (Jubilee tribute vs Dimbleby book)

I thought the video of Queen tickling Charles was the Queen’s way of getting rid of Charles. Charles had brought a book for her to read to him & instead she tickled him. (She missed an opportunity to cuddle with while she read to him.) Maybe that is while he felt she was distant.

The Queen’s priority was Phillip then her royal duties which she had taken on before her father died. Her children were a distant 3rd.

I believe the Queen was not prepared to be a mother so soon after marriage. Her mother had her 1st child 3 years into the marriage and IMO the Queen also expected not to conceive so quickly and was unprepared.

I think the family videos surprised Charles that Prince Phillip was more loving than he remembered.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Thank you for all the interesting posts. It seems that the relationship between Charles and his mother is much better now than it was in the mid-90s. Part of it is because Charles just seems happier with himself now. But I also think that the healing began when the Queen accepted Camilla into the family.

When Charles cooperated with the Dimbley book, their relationship was at a low ebb. I tend to sympathize with Charles because while his parents were apparently very supportive of both Anne and Andrew when their marriages broke up, they really pressured Charles to stay with Diana--even though he was obviously miserable. Even after it became obvious that Charles and Diana wouldn't stay together, they apparently wanted him to give up Camilla because their relationship was so unpopular.

Frankly, I don't know how he and Prince Philip get along. It wasn't too long ago that Philip referred to Charles as "precious." I hope that it has gotten better over the past few years.

 

[Broadway Duchess]

I was rewatching Prince Charles' Tribute to his mother on YT and I am struck by the warmth he seems to feel for his parents, but especially his mother. He even seemed a bit surprised, as if he hadn't remembered the time before she was queen.

I think HM was like so many parents of her time and station, which was probably a bit distant. Charles seems to be the type who needed reassurance and demonstrative love; HM was not given to emotional pleas and, given the time period, likely subscribed to the antiquated theory that an overly demonstrative mother would lead to homosexual tendencies in a boy. Charles, however, was much younger when he made the "distant" statement about HM. He has likely -- having been a parent for some time now -- reevaluated his assessment.

On another note, one great thing about the passage of time and the loosening of societal "rules" is that Charles seems much more open and happy. I'm sure that some of it is Camilla's presence in his life, but also that he can be more expressive. He doesn't have to be that aloof Prince Charming that he once was (or tried to be). His commentary during the video was adorable, with his constant references to "my mama." He just chuckled the whole way through watching the footage.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Charles seems to be the type who needed reassurance and demonstrative love...On another note, one great thing about the passage of time and the loosening of societal "rules" is that Charles seems much more open and happy.

My reaction after watching this show was much like yours. Given each's emotional needs, the Charles-Di marriage was doomed to fail and the Charles-Camilla marriage a sure success.

I break with you and your opinion on this, and I admit this may have been done in the editing. Prince Charles gets smiley when he is talking about himself in the movies OR it may be that he gets smiley when he remembers good family moments that he shared.

He does appear to be thrilled to see himself as a child. What we will never know is if this is due to narcissism or good editing. It could very well be that it stirred up lovely memories of Mum and Dad and Anne and caused those smiles.

It's just my opinion. I do think Charles is a very complex person.

 

[VictoriaB]

I think Charles opinion may have changed over the last few years. As he has become happier himself his view of the past has also become happier.

When he was going through a very unhappy time in his life (the breakdown of his marriage) it was very easy for him to cast around and blame the people he thought pushed him into that unhappy situation whether in actual fact they did or did not. It was also easy to look back on his life and see the negatives rather than the good points. He may or may not have been going through a period of depression (I'm not making a clinical diagnosis here) when everything looked bleak.

Now, as he is happier in general, I think he is able to appreciate the postives from his life much better. I think anyone who saw the warm tributes he gave to both his parents during the jubilee year can see how close he feels to both and that he does have warm and happy memories of his childhood.

Just my opinion of course and I don't pretend to be an expert.

 

[Curryong]

I don't think the Queen is an emotional woman or a particularly tactile or demonstrative mother. However the 1940's and 50's were such very different, much more formal times, especially in royal families. Charles probably was a very sensitive child who felt unappreciated by his parents. I do believe they loved him though.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I agree with what has been said above. The time was different, especially inside the rigid society of the british monarchy. I just think that the queen did what she could as a mother. She comes from a different mindset and it must have been difficult to find a balance between motherhood and the importan role of a Queen. Much more that it is nowadays. This, don't undervalued how Charles must have felt as a child; I think he did suffer from his mother's absence and maybe lack of physical affection. It was just so very different and I can't feel like judging the parents nor Charles. Being a parent is the toughest task in the world.

 

[Dman]

I agree with what has been said above. The time was different, especially inside the rigid society of the british monarchy. I just think that the queen did what she could as a mother. She comes from a different mindset and it must have been difficult to find a balance between motherhood and the importan role of a Queen. Much more that it is nowadays. This, don't undervalued how Charles must have felt as a child; I think he did suffer from his mother's absence and maybe lack of physical affection. It was just so very different and I can't feel like judging the parents nor Charles. Being a parent is the toughest task in the world.

True, The Queen obviously loved her children, but things were different in those days. Charles is very sensitive and felt different about these kind of things. He like to reflect on those carefree childhood days now, because I think he's grown to understand the situation better.

I also think this is one of the reasons why everyone noticed the different way Diana raised her children. The media and people didn't see a female member of the royal family pour so much love and affection onto her children like that before.