The last time the royal family were a functional family unit

12 comments

1. I don’t think it was Philip’s fault. I think it was cancer’s fault.

   Philip joined the family knowing that eventually he’d have to move into the role of spouse and helpmate to the sovereign, but no one expected that it would be within five years. They had their Malta years to be young marrieds, and who knows they might have gotten some Canada years.

   And then one — way earlier than anyone would’ve predicted — night a Princess went up a tree and came down a Queen.

   I think we’re going to see a lot of what could’ve happened with Prince Philip in Prince Daniel once CP Victoria becomes Queen of Sweden. He’s had a few more years to cement his role as both Dad in the household and future Prince Consort, not to mention that he’s two generations behind Philip and Gen X/Xennial Dads are more hands on with the day to day.

2. King George called the nuclear family “us 4” and Elizabeth his “pride” and Margaret his “joy.”

   Nothing was Phillip’s fault, King George just died too young which forced a new chain of events with Elizabeth being a very young mom/ queen.

3. Didn’t Philip cheat throughout the marriage? Especially the first 5 years?

4. Honestly, Philip wasn’t really shown how to be a good father. His own pretty much left Philip’s family and Philip had to leave home at a very young age for his safety. He was a better father than his own by at the very least showing up for his children, but he didn’t have the emotional maturity and patience for them (except Anne, he obviously favored Anne).

   Charles was a better father than Philip by at least leaving his sons letters telling them how proud he was of them (as per Spare), showing he was still emotionally repressed, but tried to make it work and show encouragement. Despite being a workaholic, he always in time for his son’s bed time stories and bath time. Diana said he was a good father.

   We don’t have a very in-depth look, but it’s safe to say that William and Harry are definitely more family focused with their children and so far the best fathers in the generations of Philip’s line.

5. They are only functional then because the oldest brother and his wife are living in Paris, there is a media clamp down on reporting anything to do with Philip and Margaret hasn’t got started yet.

6. Wasn’t the Queen Mother the strong force behind George VI? She was a natural leader as far as I know.

   Times changed when QEII became queen.

   I wouldn’t blame Philip, all people invoved had something do to with monarchy as a whole. He could have been less innapropiate in public and maybe less harsh with Charles?

   For me he was the voice of the Queen when couldn’t or wanted to express discomfort or asertiveness.
   She was very known for being a passive person and I understand he was kinda the enforcer between the royal family.

   edit:

   Philip had a weird childhood, his marriage with the Queen was the closest thing he had to a normal and stable family.

   Queen did had a normal family but I always feel she had some trauma for the abdication. Perhaps she believed that her father becoming king had a negative effect on him and his health.

   Also the society changed and expected more things from royals.

7. I think there are multiple reasons.

   1. The Yorks weren’t expected to ascend to the throne. Elizabeth was 10 when it happened. Her early years had a sense of normalcy and the four were able to enjoy an ordinary – if luxurious – family life.

   2. Three years after George VI became king, WW2 erupted, which famously kept the family together for the next five years. By the time the war was over, Elizabeth was already 18 years-old and had spent an enormous amount of time with her parents and sister. That would’ve been impossible in other circumstances.

   3. When Elizabeth and Philip had children, she already had an institutional role as heir. The workload only increased as she became the monarch, and the children were still very young. Elizabeth and Philip traveled a lot and were often away. They children were eventually sent to boarding schools, unlike Elizabeth and her sister.

   4. At least, Elizabeth and Philip both seemed to be less interested in parenthood than her parents were, which may had been a product of their circumstances or, simply, their personalities.

8. I’m not sure that this is true – there was way less media at that time, and the media that did exist would have been more likely to treat royal gossip as off limits. There was also more focus in society generally on maintaining a public image.

9. Aren’t they cousins?

10. Was this before Philip was playing away? It was certainly after the QM was party to the incarceration of two ‘potentially embarrassing’ family members

11. the movie king’s speech was about king george vi. he had a speech impediment and was forced into the spotlight when his good-for-nothing older brother couldn’t live without his mistress and married her and abdicated. aside from being shy and being the opposite of his charming neerdowell brother, he seemed like a decent character.

12. Are we pretending his brother wasn’t a Nazi sympathizer and still living and running around? That doesn’t seem functional. I think it’s best if we just recognize they’ve always been this way, for at least the last three generations.

Comments are closed.