On the eve of The Naming of the Third Royal Baby – aka last Thursday – the Daily Mail published a very mean story about Prince William and Prince Charles. It’s no secret that there is a deep division between Charles and William. There have been stories about their strained relationship for years – William seems bratty, Charles seems indifferent, William withholds access to his children, Charles is tired of financing the Cambridges’ lifestyle, and on and on. The DM story was about that, and how those strains manifest in how William positions Charles to look… like an uncaring grandfather, I think. Apparently, William made it so that Charles wasn’t the first grandparent to meet both Charlotte and George: Carole Middleton was the first grandparent in. So with little Prince Lou, Charles didn’t even bother trying to change his schedule. He just stayed in Birkhall in Scotland for the better part of a week before he flew into London on Wednesday.
If anyone wants the exact timeline: Will and Kate brought Prince Lou home to Kensington Palace on the same day he was born, April 23rd. By the morning of April 24th – the next day – Carole Middleton and Pippa Middleton were both visiting Kate. James Middleton and Michael reportedly visited in the first few days as well. Apparently, the Queen took a helicopter into London from Windsor Castle on Tuesday and she saw the baby (May 1st). Camilla also went to see the baby on May 1st. Charles didn’t bother until Wednesday.
Prince Charles has met his youngest grandchild Prince Louis, for the first time. Clarence House confirmed to the MailOnline on Wednesday that both the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall have now visited the prince. Charles is thought to have flown in from Scotland, where he is working, to meet Louis who was born on Monday last week.
According to Hello! Charles deliberately chose to delay his first meeting with Prince Louis so that he could coincide his visit with granddaughter Princess Charlotte’s third birthday today. The 69-year-old is thought to be spending time with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at their home in Kensington Palace. While catching up with his eldest Prince William and daughter-in-law Kate, Charles will spend time getting to know the family’s latest arrival. Once Charlotte returns home from her day at Willcocks Nursery School the family will resume celebrations for her third birthday in private.
Charles is one of the last members of the family to meet Prince Louis who was born nine days ago, with the Queen arriving at Kensington Palace on Tuesday to meet her great-grandson. This contrasts with the birth of Prince George and Princess Charlotte with their grandfather visiting both grandchildren within 24 hours of the birth.
What does this say about the relationship between father and son? Or does it say more about how this is the third baby, and thus, there was less excitement in general? I don’t know. I think Charles was particularly KEEN to let people know that he was spending time with his grandchildren. I think we can also surmise that if William was keen to let us know the details, those details would have slipped out and they would have involved the word “keen.” Basically, I don’t think this situation has changed much: there’s no thawing, but their Cold War hasn’t escalated. Charles saw the baby and he didn’t rush down and it’s fine. Maybe Charles has just accepted the fact that his son is Bill Middleton now.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
eh…I had 4 babies and my dad wasn’t rushing down. We have a good relationship but some people aren’t “baby” people. I don’t read too much into it. The baby doesn’t know.
Granddaddy shaming?
Nope, not one bit. There’s no need to rush to see a tiny newborn.
Clutching at straws to make something out of nothing. This is a non story and definitely a non issue.
@Astrid,
In fact, it may be in baby’s best interest to reduce the number of people s/he is exposed to in her/his first month or so because of viral infections, etc.
If a neonate develops a fever, it is considered a medical emergency, and results in admission to the hospital and a full work up for origin of fever ( blood cultures, CXR, lumbar puncture), which in itself puts baby at risk for hospital borne infections ( nosocomial and iatrogenic), where the pathogens are more likely to be drug resistant.
I’m with you on this one; it’s just good sense.
He probably already had Charlotte’s birthday party in his schedule and didn’t see the need to interrupt his work schedule since he would be visiting in a few days. anyway.
@notsosocialbutterfly, you realize Louis is a term baby right? And I’m not sure is you are implying that British Royal Family members don’t know what hand hygiene is? Last but not least, if family members are not symptomatic, there is nothing wrong with visiting a family with a newborn, after all, in this case, all the Middys DID visit prince Lou in the first couple of days, no? This is a term baby with zero risk factors, thats why mother left hospital within 24 HRS, there were zero risk factors to both mom and babe so no probs with non symptomatic family members to visit.
I love how people assume William and his dad aren’t close because it took a week to see the new baby. Like someone said below, they are keeping him, no rush lol. Maybe Charles had a cold or something. Too many visitors with a newborn is not the best, especially during cold and flu season
Yeah, I’m all for erring on the side of caution when it comes to this sort of thing.
Exactly. Some people aren’t “baby people” and I think it’s a safe bet to say Charles probably isn’t one, either. Lots of people don’t get comfortable with kids until they are old enough to talk and show their personality, etc.
I think Charles has had a busy schedule with even more complicated logistics given the upcoming wedding and time he will be spending in London for it —especially for a third child it makes perfect sense to me that he “kill two birds” and time the visit to the baby with Charlotte’s birthday.
I wonder if some of the people who find it so strange a grandfather delays his visit for a few days have ever had children. My parents didn’t visit until after the first week and I was more than fine with it. For me, personally, even though I had full time help, those first few days home were exhausting and I honestly didn’t really want to see ANYONE unless they were bringing me gift bags from Sephora or treats from my favorite bakery…..and even then I didn’t want them to linger. LOL
I think if one tries hard enough, one can read ANYTHING into anything and if you are bound and determined to believe in the Charles/William feud then nothing is going to change your mind. Personally, I don’t see this delayed visit as having any other meaning other than Charles already knew he was coming for Charlotte’s birthday and just decided to save a trip.
Eh…nothin’ burger. Wife’s side of the family is *usually* (not always!) closer and will be there “first”. Also depends on where family lives.
Sure there are exceptions but from what I have seen usually the wife’s family is closer.As the old saying goes “A son is a son until he takes a wife……..”
Yeah, it’s no big deal. I also didn’t want people around – except for dropping off gifts. I had so much to figure out, midwives did follow ups and that was a so appreciated, otherwise nah.
I agree. They are cute, but kind of blob-like at that age. Makes sense to time the visit with Charlotte’s birthday.
Astrid:
I’m glad this was the first post. It’s perfectly normal for families – even close ones – to live far apart and/or not have the means to drop everything when a new baby is born. It’s especially not weird for a father in law not to impose on a new mom in the early days after giving birth. 9 days seems perfectly appropriate.
After i got home i hated people continuously dropping by the house right away. I needed an adjustment time. I would have preferred people were more stretched out.
I’m not shaming at all. The baby won’t remember which grandparent was the 1st to see him. It doesn’t mean Charles loves the baby less.
+1000
@Kaiser – very interesting on both counts.
Considering so many middleton visitors – the delay in releasing the name and No ‘carol/middleton-ish” included.
Maybe Charles has essentially given up on Bill and Kate with a sigh. I continue to hear that his closer relationship is with Harry. Or, the birthday visit thing they mention here with Charlotte is likely too.
I can believe all of this.
My theory is that the Daily Mail article is accurate, and that William doesn’t play nice unless he wants something. He uses his kids as leverage.
This makes me wonder if the Louis’ name was perhaps in response to knowing the article was coming out. Like, they had something picked out and then realized that the article would paint William in a bad light. So the name was changed to something that they hoped would be a sop to Charles, rather confirming the article’s points about William in the process. I doubt it would be something Charles would see past. That would also explain why it took so long
I know that last part sounds like much, but it wouldn’t surprise me, especially since I doubt William wasn’t given advance warning about the DM article.
Speaking of the DM, my home page has a new birthday picture of Charlotte. The picture was actually taken last year while they were in Germany, at the Berlin Airport. It shows her holding a bouquet of flowers while standing next to some more. I just scanned the DM, and they don’t have the picture or article. I wonder why?
I think you are giving the Daily Mail FAR more credit and power than it has. To actually influence the name of a child? I don’t think so.
“William doesn’t play nice unless he wants something. He uses his kids as leverage.” I can believe this. My brother was the exact same way. He finally used the kids one too many times, and I finally told him and his cow of a wife to go to hell. Hurt me once, I can forgive…twice, suck it up “for family peace”, three times? Nope…my heart isn’t a punching bag.
I can agree with this as well. I know a couple using their children for leverage for money and favors from their well-to-do parents, and it is really sad to see. It’s made them (parents) so nervous… it seems like emotional extortion. The other adult kids in the family try to make up for their sibling’s behavior.
Well, it’s not like seeing the baby was a limited-time event. They’re keeping him, after all.
Sounds like Chuck finally caught on to Will’s “I’ll hold the football and you kick it” game; I’m kinda on his side here.
IKR? If anything, Kate’s and her mom have an unusually close relationship, but it’s perfectly normal for grandparents to NOT rush to a new mom’s bedside.
I’m buying that Charles wanted to combine Charlotte’s birthday with meeting little Louis. It’s the third baby thing.
It sounds like what my own dad would have done with no drama backstory. Just doing what’s most convenient for all.
This. A lot of our friends combined meeting our third baby with our son’s 5th birthday, no point in making two trips and my MIL was out of the country when #3 was born and did not rush back.
It is convenient. And it’s less disruption on the kids’ end. They’re probably a bit riled up over their new sibling – excited/suspicious/looking for attention. And if there’s a birthday right around there too – might as well just combine it into one trip instead of two. If it was a month later or something then maybe be concerned. But it’s just over a week.
Yes, especially if he had engagements out of London for that time frame. It makes sense to combine the visits rather than go to London and then back to Scotland or wherever. I imagine he was also dissuaded from coming immediately.
Maybe Charles had a cold or something. Too many visitors around a newborn is not the best thing to do anyway, especially during cold and flu season
This seems a tempest in a teapot. The mother’s family is usually the first there. It has to do with being related to the one giving birth. Grandfather’s often wait. Why do Charles and Will have to have a good relationship? Fighting makes the Royals more like us.
I don’t know. I understand her mother being the first visiting, I felt the same when I had my child… And I can imagnine he must be hurt if the accounts of William truly loving more the Middletons are true. But it really doesn’t look as if he cared to meet the baby when he was cooped up in Scotland during all these days. You just don’t wait for your son to issue an invitation, you just go.
Maybe he had a cold or flu, it’s only been nine days. I know after I had my kid, I was pretty picky about visitors, didn’t appreciate people stopping by without notice that’s for sure.
The royals don’t operate like regular people. They write to each other. They get their PAs to arrange time together. Even where they are living next to each other. They absolutely wait for an invitation. No dropping in.
These stories about Charles’s schedules seem incredulous to regular people because that’s how regular people function. It’s probably why William adores the Middletons, apart from other issues, because as regular people, they just drop in. No need to send a note and have a PA arrange it.
Knowing how his family functions, William takes advantage of it to keep Charles (and other Windsors) away without looking shady * to them* because it’s perfectly fine *for them* to use their dairies as the excuse for not seeing each other regularly.
LAK, thanks for filling me in on how to address the royals. After I read your response it occurred to me that I’d like to follow you around all day just listening to you talk. Do you teach?
Interesting.
LOL, spend more time on message boards for new mothers and you’ll see why he couldn’t “just go.”
SO MANY POSTS of “omg my ILs are coming to visit and no one asked them!!!! I don’t want them here!!! How do I get them to leave?!?!?!?!?!!?”
Oh yeah, I would never just drop by on anyone with a newborn. People did it to me and I hated it. I had my mom and MIL there, so it was a little easier, but I was still pretty annoyed by it.
I kind of like the way the Royals do this, any visiting is invitation only. I think it’s rude for people to just drop by even if it is family.
I believe with the first 2 babies, William told Charles to wait to be invited to see them. So, he has to wait for an invitation. I have no doubt this was the same way, and it just so happened Charles was further away, with plans and security and travel that would all need to be changed.
That is what i heard as well.
The Queen is comfortable taking helicopters.
That annual train journey she takes to Norfolk for her christmas break is simply PR. Always has been. She started doing it at the height of media exposure of the profligate use of taxpayer funds.
What i find more amazing about this helicopter flight is the fact it was publicised at all because it’s off-message for the Queen. And the Queen is rarely papped or the pictures allowed to ran.
At the risk of the off-message helo ride, allowing the papped pics of the Queen to be ran in the media is a public message.
Given the BP vs CH recent animosity, i can’t help wondering if these pictures are her way of showing publicly that she’s a caring grannie unlike her son who remained in Scotland.
I thought she refused to ride in helicopters.
The Queen rides helicopters for personal and business travel. The BRF is very helicopter people, Philip, Andrew, Charles, William and Harry are all helicopter pilots.
What exactly does Edward do, and what has he done for the BRF, other than increase its size? He’s very quiet, isn’t he?
Edward rarely gets publicity, but he undertakes between 200 -300 engagements annually.
He also takes several international tours on behalf of HM.
Yeah, he’s a full time working Royal, as is Sophie. They are also very close with the Queen and help her with various things. Edward’s attempts at real world success really turned out very badly, but seems find with his Royal Duties. I think Sophie’s PR firm did better, but if Edward wasn’t going to work outside the Firm, she wasn’t going to either. They seem happy doing what they do and don’t seem to complain about anything.
Sophie and Edward are hard workers, but quiet and modest about it, even though as a former PR pro, Sophie could use the press to their benefit. Instead, no fuss. No wonder the Queen adores and confides in Sophie.
Maybe Charles is selfish and doesn’t make his son or new grandson a priority? Why is it Will or the Middleton’s fault? Isn’t it more believable that Charles is cold and uncaring? His own wife visited two days before him. It seems like it was Charles’ choice to delay. So then I ask you, if he takes his time meeting his grandson, is it unreasonable for Will and Kate to not bed over backwards to seem him as well?
It’s not like William’s side didn’t visit. Princess Eugenie came the same day as Pippa.
Eugenie went home. She lives at KP now too. Nothing to indicate she actually visited W&K.
Eugenie will start to look like WK’s bestie in the PR games if they keep papping her going in and out of KP and running the pictures as if she doesn’t live there.
It’s probably not a popular opinion here but I think it’s good that William and Kate have the Middletons, specifically Carole, to fuss over the baby. Charles is older, more removed, he wants to spend his time with Camilla.
Minx, I can agree with the overall sentiment of what you are saying. I absolutely loved my maternal grandmother and great-grandmother and they absolutely loved and adored me. However, my paternal grandparents were removed and distant. As a matter of fact, we addressed my father’s mother as Mrs. XXXX when both taking to her and about her. We also addressed my father’s father by his first name. So, I get what you are saying. However, I don’t know that Charles is distant and removed by his own choice and/or if he wants to spend the majority of his time exclusively with Camilla when otherwise not engaged. That’s where you and I would disagree.
I agree with this 100%. I also think it’s a bit fascinating how so many commentators on here praise Meghan for cutting out toxic family member but we seem to side eye William for doing it in a diplomatic way with his father? Charles was a horrible father to the boys growing up so I have no idea why William should be forced to fake any sort of relationship with him. I think the Middletons give him what he always craved and always lacked, a tight-knit loving family.
Lela: Your Meghan example is incorrect because Meghan is not taking money from said toxic family members nor being nice to her toxic family because they otherwise they will stop the money train.
If William stood by his convictions, he would cut off Charles in every way, money included. Try living on his own funds instead of using Charles’s funds.
Charles was not a horrible father to the boys growing up. That’s your own prejudice and presumption because he was a bad husband to Diana ergo he must have been a bad father.
Not even Diana, despite her stunt queening mothering, claimed that Charles was a bad father.
Charles was a lot of things, but a horrible father he was not, and to state that so flagrantly is disingenuous. He’s not the warm, cuddly figure, and he’s not the “down home normal” – but why would anyone expect him to be? Look how he was raised…look at his life – the whole point of the monarchy is to NOT be normal, because if you’re normal, then what’s the point?
Anyways, he was very involved and affectionate with his kids, and took great efforts to protect them and give them a good childhood. His marriage is another story, but that’s not a reflection of his parenting any more than anyone else’s relationship issues are. Two things can be true…you can be a father who cares about your children, and also a horrible spouse. One doesn’t negate the other.
There is a huge difference between what the Markle half siblings are doing to Meghan and the relationship between Charles and William. The Markles never lived with Meghan, are significantly older and never supported her and are now going to the press to slam her directly because she isn’t inviting them to a wedding. Did any of them attend her first wedding?
Meanwhile Charles raised his children as a single parent after Diana’s death and they got everything they wanted. Now that William is expected to do more royal work even though he has been getting full time perks for years, he is stubborn and power trips using the Middletons because they cater to his every whim. Charles was not a perfect parent and did not have a perfect marriage with Diana, but to even pretend this is the same kind of thing is disingenuous. And William won’t entirely cut off Charles because he certainly takes advantage of all the money he gets from Charles.
I’m sick of Charles apologists. He is a bad man, bad person. That whole family is twisted, Louis’ siblings are small and they need attention now, being with grandpa would’ve been nice. Especially since it was Charlotte’s b-day.
The Middletons are social climbers but they are family. One can hope Markle’s mum will move to take care of their future kids.
He was there for charlotte’s birthday. That’s what the article said. He didn’t come see Louis immediately because he was coming for charlotte’s birthday a few days later.
I don’t care for Charles at all really, but I don’t think he was a “bad father” at all. There is absolutely no evidence to say this is true.
@milla
Agreed. The usual lot of Charles apologists come out whenever there is an opportunity to make Willian and Kate look bad. I suppose that it is done so as to paint Harry as the favoured son and then by some stretch of the imagination use that to give Meghan an edge over Kate. The mental gymnastics ive seen lately have been quite incredible.
Recently a poster said that she predicts that Charles would escort Camilla and Doria to see Meghan’s child and that Charles will learn a lot from his new in-laws. Yes, Charles, that very same man who only a few weeks ago proudly displayed his racism.
I didn’t predict it, Mrs Bump, I said I’d like it to happen, esp as I don’t expect to see much of Meghan’s father in the future. Doria also appears very anti-public exposure, but slightly less so than her ex. She will probably show up in London to support her daughter if her daughter has a baby. Seeing Charles escort Camilla and Doria up the hospital steps together would be a nice and logical event instead of the games we see W, K, and the Middletons play against Charles.
Charles does learn from his mistakes and I’m hoping he continues to learn from his new in-laws, Meghan and Doria.
By waiting a few days Charles told William that he is tired of William’s pr games and machinations and that he will no longer be blackmailed.
Ha that’s nothing,where I am from some women don’t let the men see the baby for up to 40 days.
Wasn’t he away working? And then wanted it to coincide with Charlotte’s birthday? The baby was 9 days old-not 9 months old. I think this is much ado about nothing.
I echo this. I think Charles & William do have a fraught relationship. Waiting 9 days could be a reflection of that. However, Charles could have been told that there was no need to come down from Scotland right away because WK were still settling in. They too have phones. Perhaps they texted pictures or FaceTimed? Who knows. But I echo the fact that’s it’s been 9 days and not 9 months. Only Charles & William will know if the 9 days signifies something else. . . which I am hoping it’s Charles basically saying to William “I’m tired. I’m old. I’m not going to play too many more games of slap and tickle with you over real and/or supposed transgressions.”
Agreed ^
Maybe Charles didn’t want to make two trips back from Scotland, but he wanted to be there for Charlotte’s birthday so he combined the two visits into one and actually, the fact that his granddaughter’s birthday is a priority says more than him taking 9 days to meet a newborn who wouldn’t know either way.
This too.
I can agree with this! Imagine the outcry if he had taken two separate trips instead. I think critics would say “Why did he make a special trip to see Louis? He’s a baby!” In a way, he can’t really win.
Am in the same camp that this is over analysing it.
Is it possible that maybe post-partum Kate doesn’t feel up to seeing Chuck right after birth because it’s too formal? She might feel the need to get all dressed up, and while she did that for a few minutes at the hospital, maybe that is all she can manage?
My armchair speculation? Charles funds his kids as repayment for guilt he feels over the pain he caused them with regards to their mother. He was never really close to them like she was and I can see how William in particular might feel like he’s at least partly to blame. As far as seeing the baby, I understand why Kate’s mom is first. It’s a special bond between mother and daughter when you start having your own children. Come on…I’d put Diana second to Carole in this case. Now 9 days? Yeah the baby isn’t going anywhere but it’s not like you’re coming to admire a new art piece or furniture or redecorating. You’re meeting a new, dynamic, human being. Unless you have something contagious, get your butt over there.
Charles’s poor relationship with William started in young adulthood. Not when he was a child. It’s pure fanfiction to back date it to William’s childhood, and it repeats a Diana-tinged made up assumption that Charles the bad husband to Diana must have been a bad father to his kids too.
It started when preteen William would be shoving Kleenex under the bathroom door to a crying Diana. While it was reprehensible that Diana made a young boy, her son!, as her confidante, it made William privy to a lot of things he should not’ve known about Charles’ treatment of his mother. And while it was through Diana’s “filter”, William could still see the effect, and I’ll bet it has always stayed with him.
Imqrious2: I agree that she shouldn’t have made him privy to her hurt, but she also deliberately lied to him and caused him personal anguish on her own eg Panorama interview.
He wasn’t happy about her antics during that last year and frequently refused to join her because of her antics. Alot of his anguish about her is due to their relationship in that last year.
When he was outed for not working, he pointed out that Diana (and Charles ) wasn’t an available parent and frequently left him and Harry alone.
He lives in a house that was infamous for Charles/ Camilla trysts.
He is besties with a family that sided with Charles against his mother to extent that their son is George’s godfather.
His current Diana filter is more about fixing something he never had a chance to fix. And like Diana, he is rearranged the timeline around one person who isn’t 100% to blame. That rearranged story will become the public story and will bite him just as it bit his mother.
.
Adding, again, that William has shown no adversity to cheating and infidelity himself. Whatever his problem was around the situation, it wasn’t the infidelity of both his parents. It was how he felt his life was impacted, not how it impacted the two of them. Much as he has begun complaining about Diana being a bad parent (in his mind) because she worked “too much”.
@aerohead21…Charles has no choice but to fund his kids that is exactly how the RF works. If they are to have public roles they need the lifestyle and necessary support to do it.
He most certainly does not need to fund them the way he has been. He doesn’t need to pay for Kate’s wardrobe or upgrades to Anmer or all the other stuff we know he pays for. All of that comes out of Charles’ own funds, not his civil list funds, which I think pays for the more official side of his sons’ duties. Everything else is extra, and they could fund themselves.
The Civil List no longer exists, now they have The Sovereign Grant.
Charles, Camilla, W&K, H+M funding comes from The Duchy. Things like nannies, housekeepers, etc. Which does not belong to Charles personally but to the taxpayers. All security comes from the taxpayers also.
Wardrobe comes from a mixture, mostly The Duchy but also from diplomatic budgets. Charles takes all work-related Duchy expenses off on his taxes (ie. the majority of what KM spends on clothing).
Special things, like some decorating at Anmer and the $100,000 tennis court were extorted out of Charles’s personal funds by W&K through a mixture of guilt, I love the Middletons more, do you want to see your grandkids, and more guilt.
Edited to write LAK explains this much better below.
Why wouldn’t Carole be the first grandparent to see her grandson? My mom had both my dad and her mother in the room during the labor and delivery. Unless that is no allowed in the UK for some reason.
This whole “charles is tired of funding the Cambridges” line is truly bizarre.
It’s not like Charles worked for that money, it was basically passed down to him via his inheritance (or state given benefits) so of course he’ll have to pass it on to the future generations, thats how the whole concept of royalty works, i.e money/privileges passes down from generation to generation to those lucky enough to be born from the right vajajay
Charles is legally not required to fund his sons and their lifestyles. He obsfucates the way he funds them so that he can get round the legal definition of who can receive duchy funds. Ie creative accounting.
The wording of the duchy specifically names the *heir apparent* to the throne and his household. Nothing about the heir’s children or heir’s siblings and their families or their households. In ye old times, they would have been expected to fend for themselves because they kept this line very clear. The monarch funded everyone except the heir.
* heir apparent* is not the same thing as *heir presumptive*. The Queen was *heir presumptive* which is why she never got the duchy when she was heir.
William is currently heir to the heir, not heir presumptive, nevermind heir apparent. Harry is now 6th in line. Neither definition gives them the right to duchy money. Charles gets around this legal wording by listing William and Harry as his household, not his sons. He gets round funding their duties by claiming they are an extension of *his* work in support of the crown.
If he did stop funding them, there would be a public uproar and a chance to bash him as an uncaring father, but legally he would be in the right.
Sorry Lak but this is still a storm in a teacup. Fact this he has to fund them, this isnt the ole time, none of them lot can fend for themselves, and i dont see Harry living on Meghan’s wages either. Whether it is required by law or not is irrelevant, it is the only workable solution, so getting “tired of funding the Cambridges” is ridiculous. This is how the cookie crumbles and I’m pretty sure an old-timer like Charles knows this too.
MrsBump:Firstly, Isn’t it self-evident that my comment includes Harry or are you simply determined to dismiss every point that doesn’t praise the Cambridges specifically?
Accepting their blurred lines because that’s ‘how the cookie crumbles’ demonstrates how good their gaslighting PR is.
Legally, he doesn’t have to fund them. He chooses to do so. That’s a crucial difference that you simply ignore to pretend William and Harry are helpless in the face of daddy’s money or their own ineptitude at finding alternative sources of income.
You also ignore that Harry (and William +other royals) all have trust funds independent of daddy’s money. They might not have worked for them, but they have them, and choose to be beholden to Charles instead of spending their own money. Removing Harry +William from the duchy funds will still leave them millionaires. Not as rich as daddy, but still millionaires.
Im not sure why you are being so defensive over Harry, where did i say he was worse than the Cambridges ?
Also, i don’t understand what point you are actually making, you point out that Charles isn’t legally obligated to fund his kids, but then say that he chooses to do so, presumably out of his own free will. So where exactly is the problem with my original statement, Charles clearly understands that this is how it works, so the whole poor Charles routine forced to hand over money to his kids is nonsense. That’s how things work in practice, he knows and they know it too.
regarding Harry and William’s money, i doubt they could fund the lifestyles they are accustomed to by living off their trust fund millions. It’s probably pocket money compared to what Charles is racking in.
As for gaslighting, please, the British people are not dumb, they have made their bed, and consciously chosen to fund the royals despite no tangible proof of actual added value so most people are not “falling for their PR”. When i lived in the UK, most of the British people i knew simply did not care enough to change the status quo.
MrsBump: it’s simple, You are making the argument that Charles has to fund his kids. I am rebutting that. If you think correcting your points is defensive, so be it.
As for the apathetic British public, if we learnt anything from Diana, information is key.
And unlike you, i’m an optimist. I have had the good fortune to be ringside to the battle that exposed the MPs’ misuse of public funds for their expenses, so i don’t believe in the invincibility of sacred cows.
You seem to be mixing two completely different points together.
Of course the whole monarchy thing is farcical and none of them should be getting a penny for their pretend work.
However if we go with the premise that UK has decided to fund the royals, then for Charles to refuse to dole out the wealth, that he himself has been unfairly given, to his kids is hypocritical.
As for the invincibility of sacred cows, i hope you are right, but it will only happen if the UK is in such a dire economic position that they are forced to part ways with them, most people love to complain, few will take the drastic steps necessary to make change happen. It’s human nature.
My point isn’t about Monarchy. It’s about transparency of the funds they receive. It’s similar to the clear line that had to be drawn over the Queen paying her various relatives out of the taxpayer civil list funds.
Any money he gives his sons is a gift, not a right. It makes no difference that William will eventually inherit the duchy. He isn’t the heir apparent. Charles lists his sons as household when they aren’t part of his household any longer nor does the argument hold that they are dependent on him due to a lack of their own funds.
I see the point you are making but again it is not relevant to my comment which was the press/other commentors here making Charles look like a VICTIM for being forced to give money to his kids. That narrative is simply not true, whether his kids should be listed as part of his household is a different matter entirely. Personally i dont think they should be, but when you sign up to something as intrinsically unfair as the monarchy, to then complain who should or shouldn’t benefit from the loot is splitting hairs in my opinion.
MrsBump: The argument you fail to see, which is the one being made by others is that Charles is being used. That doesn’t mean those people suddenly love Charles or think he is a saint or beloved.
If anything, i’d (and they) say that he is a self-made martyr given the very clear game his sons have played. If he truly wanted to know how they felt, he’d cut those purse strings and see how willingly they kept his company outside of the mandatory family events.
Finally, regarding your comment about the monarchy, we may have (un)willingly signed upto it,but we didn’t sign up to fund an entire smorgasbord of royals. Especially when they have their own trustfunds.
I keep bringing up the MPs expenses because that was the nature of the scandal surrounding them. We signed up to paying their expenses NOT for duck islands and all manner of expenditure. Ditto the Queen being limited to herself and her hubby and clearly expensed items of those members of her family who deputise for her with regards royal duties.
There is also the difference of the use of Duchy funds to support them working (ie. we need so many housekeepers and nannies so we can work, oops we’re not going to work anyway) which can be seen as a work-related expense vs. guilting the $100,000 out of Charles’s personal funds for the tennis court at Anmer.
Yes I don’t get it. When (if) Charles gets the Crown Estate – the Duchy of Cornwall (where Charles income primarily comes from) will get past on to William. That’s just how it works. It’s not like Charles made the money himself!
@namasta – exactly. The wording is irrelevant it is the principle, passing down wealth and privileges is how royalty perpetuates itself. That money, that wasn’t earned by Charles, will eventually be William’s and Harry’s
MrsBump: the wording matters for now because if Charles refused to fund William and Harry, they can’t take him to court about it because they do not have any right to the money.
This isn’t a normal, regular person inheritance where the assumption is ironclad that William and Harry have a right to the estate and can argue the toss before they’ve inherited and a court sides with them. This inheritance can be taken away at any moment public and parliament act.
Right now they receive money from the estate BECAUSE Charles chooses to give it. Wording in the documents is crucial otherwise he wouldn’t list his sons as a household expense in the public accounts.
Reminds me of when HM was the heiress. She wasn’t the Duke of Cornwall; they had to go to Parliament to gain access to some of the funds which were then used to fund their household. The legalities matter.
@ LAK…If Charles did not fund his sons how would they be able to carry out their public duties and networking and entertaining for charities etc.
PrincessK: Firstly, thank you for this question.
It’s so easy to see them as helpless because of the umbrella of Charles’s financial largesse that other things are overlooked.
1. If they are to carry out royal duties, they would be reinbursed by the Queen via the Sovereign grant. This is how she funds the other royals when they represent her. Their home in KP was specifically refurbished out of money ear-marked for BP from taxpayers precisely because they were to use it as a London home *for their royal duties*. That is why the Queen (via the taxpayers) funded it.
2. Any charity work would be on their own dime. Like the other royals do. By that i mean that they would have to figure out ways to fund their charity properly in much the same way that Charles (and other royals) have to do as opposed to just doing a fragrant pap stroll once a year to the charity and hope that’s enough.
3. Financially, they have trustfunds. All the royals do. They start receiving an income from them at 25yrs old. Additionally, the QM divided up her assets to create trusts for her living great-grandchildren in 1994, and in the case of William and Harry, they also have Diana money.
If Charles cut them off, they wouldn’t live as lavishly, but they would still be millionaires.
LAK – how do the other royals live? Like Edward, Andrew, Anne – I know its been said that Anne “funds” her children, but where is her money from? a trust fund? Do they all receive money from the sovereign grant since they are working royals?
The only money they receive from the Sovereign grant is expenses incurred for royal duties.
Privately, apart from their trusts, they receive money from the Queen from her private funds, and any personal wealth they derive from private activities, investments or friends.
@MrsBump,
I agree. After the civil list was abolished, the Queen and Charles are the only ones who receive direct funding unless one or more of the older royals were grandfathered in. The Queen and Charles have agreed to manage “the Firm” and part of the job is managing and paying the royals that fall under their respective duchies. If Charles is tired of funding the Cambridges, or is not up to “managing” them, then he should turn over the responsibility and the funding that comes with it to another entity.
Note that once Charles becomes King, William becomes the Duke of Cornwall, and at that point Charles no longer has to worry about funding and managing William and his family. Of course as the monarch, he will ultimately calls the shot, but Charles has operated fairly independently as the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, and I predict that William will likewise be given a wide berth while Charles focuses his people management energies on Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and the Gloucesters.
When my friends give birth I usually wait for texts or phone calls right after to see if everyone made it out alive. After that, I give them their space and then see them when they’re ready. I believe the stories about Charles being incredibly nasty and imperious to people who serve him. I think it’s disgusting to take advantage of people who can’t say no to you. That said, I think it is very unfair for Wills/Bill Middleton to take money from daddy while acting like he can’t deal with him. It seems incredibly dysfunctional. I think the Middletons should be funding their lifestyle since they were the ones who were so keen on getting Waity Katie a tiara.
Why do you believe all the bad stories?
Are they all true?
Seems like much ado about nothing, really. An excuse to sell papers.
Dunno about the rest, but of course my parents were the first ones in when my kids were born. I’m the one that shoved the baby out of my body.
Yes, I think that is standard in most families. The conversation would be different, imo, if we were discussing Meghan and Doria.
My Father in Law is not very interested in babies but once the kids are about 2 he kind of steps up. He has 10 grandkids and I have 3 and am not at all offended by it. If it wasn’t for my mother in law he wouldn’t see the babies much at all. It is not like Camilla is rushing to see the babies either so I feel like this isn’t that big of a deal. Old men aren’t always want to goo and gah over tiny babies. The babies don’t know.
Here is my opinion, Charles probably had a chance to meet Prince Louis before now but didn’t bother. He doesn’t exactly strike me as the most loving or affectionate parent or the type to rush to meet his grandson. Prince George was obviously different because he was an heir. I don’t remember him going to the hospital to see Charlotte.
I think the Middletons have a bigger role in their grandkids lives because they actually try and make time for them. Staged or not, you can tell in the pictures that Prince George is close to and comfortable with Carole. That doesn’t happen overnight or by visiting once ina blue moon. I am sure there are a lot of things going on that we don’t know about but I don’t think it’s as simple as William keeping his kids from Charles.
It will be interesting to see if Carole is as involved with Pippa’s new baby as she is with her other three grandkids. It will be Pippa’s first child and presumably she will want her mother there a lot as well. Pippa’s father in law is going to be far more problematic than Charles ever could be when it comes to visiting so she probably won’t get much help at all from her in laws.
It’s also hard comparing a grandfather to a grandmother. We don’t see much of Michael Middleton at KP compared to Carole, which is probably the better comparison to make with Charles. I don’t think Diana would have stood back and waited for an invite either.
Also, Pippa will not have the resources Kate has. I know James Matthews is “terribly moderately wealthy” but I am assuming they don’t have the live-in help Kate has, and that they wont have a live-in nanny.
At this time I would say that Pippa and James are probably better off than William and Kate by a long shot, but that will likely change as William moves up in the ranks.
Pippa and her husband live in a £20 million pound house in London. They have apparently moved out whilst an extension which includes a nursery wing,is built.
Charles was meant to have been a caring father. Diana sometimes changed her arrangements to stop him from seeing W and H. No word about how she took her sons with her when she stayed with her lover at his mother’s house.
Charles’s schedule is set 6-9 months in advance. If W&K aren’t willing to schedule time around Charles WORKING, he cannot drop everything to be with them.
nic919, I sincerely doubt Carole with be anywhere as much involved with Pippa’s kids. They aren’t the ones fulfilling her ambitions.
I’m only here for the snark! And boy , do we get plenty of that to go with vivid imaginations. 😀
For the record Diana got 17 million pounds immediate settlement on the divorce (Charles had to borrow from his mother to cover that) and because she died relatively soon afterwards the two boys did very nicely thank you out of her Will.
We honestly have no real idea of how Charles and William get on and we don’t have to believe everything we read in the papers.
But Spidee, if you insist on injecting your filthy LOGIC into this, how will the steady stream of fantasy keep flowing?
I can’t really blame you for your ignorance, as I, too, was blind to the truth before others educated me on the future —-a future in which Charles is so taken with Meghan and Harry that he bypasses horrible Willaim AND William’s three heirs ( as of now ) so that Harry and Meghan follow him as king and queen. ( rolls eyes so hard it hurts )
Camilla went to see Louis one day before Charles? There is a story in there too. After so many days, why not wait one more? Hmmm….
It’s their third baby, and the grandfather waiting a week to go see the baby, I don’t see the big deal. I don’t think my brother-in-law’s parents saw their third grandchild until a couple of weeks later. That suited my sister just fine. There’s enough going on with a new baby and young ones in the house. She wanted my mom and father there. My dad, would he have rushed to see the baby if my mom didn’t? I don’t think so. They lived an hour away. He was a loving man and a great grandfather when the kids were older. I loved him and he was a sentimental man and tremendous father, but mom was the driving force on those things. There were there in the hospital for some births in our family. It depended on who wanted them there. More so my sister (some births) and myself, not my brothers.
Frankly, William sounds like a spoiled brat. Despite what went on in the marriage between Charles and Diana (and she wasn’t blameless), Charles has picked up the financial tab for William and Kate quite a bit – so maybe since he wants to be a Middleton, they can start picking up the tab now. Sound fair?
Yep. Diana brainwashed that boy. He needs to grow up and reframe his experience from an adult perspective. Not saying Diana’s experience and untimely death didn’t suck, but every story had many perspectives.
My parents in law, who lived 250 miles away, who were retired and went on loads of holidays, did not see my daughter until they came up for her christening when she was 3 months old.
This is the first I’ve heard of Michael visiting the baby. There are no photos and it seems he’s never photographed with Carol anymore. I’m not convinced her parents are still together, other than photo ops.
Michael has rarely been sighted in the last couple of years. All the social media events of people who catch W&K on vacation often mention Carole being there too, but never Michael. That would throw a wrench into William’s obsession with the Middletons as the perfect happy family.
All it says is Charles wanted to be there for Charlotte’s birthday party. (Three is a very cute age.) And, if I were him, I’d figure they’d want a week or so to settle in. If anyone is at fault it is the cloying Middletons who have to jump right in within a day of birth without giving the family a drop of space. If Kate has a nanny/nurse, there is no reason for anyone to show up immediately.
Click bait! The RF is becoming more like a reality show esp since Harry became engaged. Sad.
Nope, don’t get to blame this on Meghan Markle. The BRF has been a soap opera and tabloid fodder for years.
Click bait
Question which has very little to do with this topic. Which royal residences are owned by the Queen? I know she owns Sandringham, and Balmoral. What about Buckinham, Kensington, Clarence House, Malborough House, Windsor Castle, Hampton court and others?
Only Balmoral and Sandrigham are personal property.
The rest are state properties. If we get rid of monarchy or her family as heads of state, she (they) has no right to the rest nor can she expect compensation for being moved out.
Yes, but LAK I’m QUITE sure HM would love to sell all the furnishings at 300 per cent market value just like MM’s buddies ie-Mila Mulroney et al.
Ok, so who pays for the repairs on the state-owned places? I thought that she paid for the repairs at Windsor after the fire in 1992.
All the state owned palaces are repaired and maintained by the state and paying public who visit them. She receives money to maintain some of them whilst others are under the care of 2 charities, The Royal Collection Trust and Historical Royal Palaces.
The Windsor castle repairs were paid via a combination of a govt grant and public funds obtained via forcing her to open the castle (and the other palaces) to paying visitors.
Fascinated by all of the brand new, pro-W&K, anti-Charles, anti-Harry and Meghan posters on here in the last couple of weeks.
Don’t forget pro-Middletons.
Charles is a Scorpio he would not want to interfere until things had calmed down with al the visitations and seen his grandson quietly – well that’s my view. Also fitted nicely into charlottes birthday so keeping in mind his environmental attitude possible but you would like to think so mileage and fuel