Harry and Meghan. UK Visit.

I noticed that the responses to my comments on relationships between cousins, aunts, and uncles all seemed to refer to childhoods in the past
Is it true for our GC that they don't have any knowledge of their cousins?
The joy of modern communications is that we can see and engage with each other, even those of us who live many miles away.

youtube.com/shorts/-gQPp7kychY?is=vYz2e84GWEE-HL2L

I have far too many cousins (from a catholic background )...about 28. I only see 2 of them as the rest are very far from me both geographically and politically....happily never see them again!

If my 2 AC passed their cousins in the street they would not know them.
In many families such relationships are not unusual.
It is not that we didn’t speak to my H’s siblings , if we met at family occasions, which were infrequent, we were fine but we had very little in common with them and their children.

It's as normal for H and M's children not to have a relationship with their royal cousins as it is for their royal cousins, ie William's children, not to have a relationship with H and M's children.

Cousin relationships are not the only relationships children have. They will make local friends which increasingly over the years will be of great importance and we know from our own teenage years. It's a loss both ways as a result of estrangement. Both parents will rationalise the situation, as they see it, and explain to their children accordingly.

I saw my cousins infrequently after my Mum and Dad moved away from Manchester 'down south'.

Distance and living on 2 continents would have impacted anyway and estrangement adds an. extra distance layer.

The thing is, though, they won't know anything else.

I didn't know my cousins and have never missed them.

Just a thought.
Their situation is entirely normal for them.
I don't feel I missed anything as unless you see cousins regularly you are pretty distant as children

Chocolatelovinggran

I am a Republican, so do not feel able to comment, usually, on threads about the royal family.
However, I do feel sadness for the little children of this couple.
My understanding is that they are estranged from the families on both sides.
This situation means that they do not enjoy what many children do - the fun of big and little cousins, the interest of aunts, uncles, and grandparents.
My GC, like so many others, tell the wider family about their school report, demonstrate their prowess on the trumpet, perform their dances, etc etc.
Some of this happens via a video link, as some live away, but all receive lots of praise and enthusiasm from us all .
Mine love to hear tales of their parents' childhood escapades, especially the naughty ones ...
What a loss for these children.

Absolutely. Used as pawns in H&M's game. I wonder how these 2 children may react when they are old enough to ask questions and make their own decisions on who they see and where they go. To be denied a relationship, albeit a distant one, with their grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins is very cruel.

I am a Republican, so do not feel able to comment, usually, on threads about the royal family.
However, I do feel sadness for the little children of this couple.
My understanding is that they are estranged from the families on both sides.
This situation means that they do not enjoy what many children do - the fun of big and little cousins, the interest of aunts, uncles, and grandparents.
My GC, like so many others, tell the wider family about their school report, demonstrate their prowess on the trumpet, perform their dances, etc etc.
Some of this happens via a video link, as some live away, but all receive lots of praise and enthusiasm from us all .
Mine love to hear tales of their parents' childhood escapades, especially the naughty ones ...
What a loss for these children.

merlotgran

We tend to refer to the King and Queen as Charles and Camilla in my family. The same goes for William and Kate (although we know it should be Catherine)
Harry and Meghan, Sophie and Edward.

The only exception is Princess Anne because we’re not as familiar with her husband. We did used to talk about Anne and Mark though back in the day.

We are the same.

I think I grew up with the Royals being the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother.

You wouldn’t have dreamed of saying Liz and Phil back in the 50’s, but then most people were Mr and Mrs, not all Christian names like nowadays.

Times have changed, which is why it’s C&C, W&C, and, sorry to say, H&M.

We tend to refer to the King and Queen as Charles and Camilla in my family. The same goes for William and Kate (although we know it should be Catherine)
Harry and Meghan, Sophie and Edward.

The only exception is Princess Anne because we’re not as familiar with her husband. We did used to talk about Anne and Mark though back in the day.

Aldom

Why do people refer to the king as Charles?
I doubt anyone would have referred to the late queen as Elizabeth.

You are quite correct we should, I guess it's familiarity, we have been around as long as he has. Every year I think he is the same age as me!.

MarieElla

There's only so much a parent can take and Harry has pushed and pushed KC with all his demands, tantrums and drama..

If there had been apologies that would be a different matter.
But there have been none. As far as I know.

No indication either of a massive change in behaviour from either of them, going forward.

If they really wanted to see Charles that's what they'd do Aveline, but they don't.

You'd think they might venture a quiet visit when the King is at Balmoral later this summer. But, of course, a quiet visit is not what they want.

There's only so much a parent can take and Harry has pushed and pushed KC with all his demands, tantrums and drama..

Why do people refer to the king as Charles?
I doubt anyone would have referred to the late queen as Elizabeth.

Determined.

There is no way Charles would want a repeat of the Australia debacle. Harry was told "straight" you are welcome to come on a private visit, there will be no media circus and no state security. He may also have threatened to remove the Duke and Duchess titles if the scandalmongering continues.

How does anyone know what the king is "determined" to do?

By his actions, which are consistent.

I believe it too. Harry's though?

Statements from the palace have been issued ever since ‘Megxit.’ The Queen vetoed the half in, half out approach and the King seems to be even more firm on the matter.
When the palace issues a statement I tend to believe it.

How does anyone know what the king is "determined" to do

merlotgran

The king is determined to avoid the ‘half in, half out’ life that H&M clearly wanted.

If they have full royal protection whenever they choose to visit there is nothing to stop them popping in and out for events that are good for their PR. The late queen was not going to allow that and neither is the king.

William would go up in smoke!!

I think this just about sums it up, thankyou merlotgran.

Who exactly are 'his team'? His PR?

He didn't accept the invitation in time, so the invitation was with drawn.

Harry and his team would have been fully aware of what was required of him when the invitation was made but I suppose it's easier to put a negative spin on not being able to stay at Buck. Palace than if he'd accepted in time and stayed there.

Just looked this up, Daddima
It was his team that said the "offer had been withdrawn"

www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a71835181/prince-harry-reacts-to-buckingham-palace-offer-withdraw/?hl=en-GB