Princess Charlene put Albert’s son Alexandre in the servants’ quarters?!

monaco nicole coste

This was the cover of Paris Match about a week and a half ago. This is Nicole Coste and her son Alexandre. Alexandre’s father is Prince Albert of Monaco. Albert only acknowledged that he fathered Alexandre in 2005 (he was born in 2003), and it was because Nicole pushed the issue. That being said, Nicole says that Albert has been a good father to Alexandre and that the three of them have good relations. Now, in this Paris Match interview, Nicole spilled about Princess Charlene and it was very, very interesting.

In the almost two decades since her explosive 2005 interview, Nicole has raised Alexandre and his older half-brothers in Geneva, London and New York, and chosen to stay largely out of the spotlight. However she is now firmly back in the public eye after she and Alexandre attended Monaco’s glittering Rose Ball alongside Albert and other members of the royal family, and marked the teenager’s 18th birthday with a lavish bash thrown by his royal father.

Speaking in the most recent issue of Paris Match, Nicole explained Albert has been a constant presence in his son’s life, despite reports to the contrary, and had been involved in everything from his education to his birthday parties.

‘Albert made a commitment from the start to be present, and to gradually bring his son into his family,’ she said, in an interview translated from French. ‘Very quickly, I was reassured when Princess Stephanie became Alexander’s godmother. Albert has honored his promise: things are building well and running their course, which I am delighted with. Contrary to what some have written, Albert has always assumed his role as a father and no financial agreement has ever been made between us. Our relationship is built on trust.’

She added: ‘Alexandre inherited my politeness, my great kindness. Albert too is tender, sensitive, warm. Alexandre looks like us a lot. They get along very well and are very close friends. They like to play sports together and sometimes talk about politics.’

Alexandre, who has recently been signed as a model, starts university this autumn. Nicole did not rule out the possibility of her son playing a role in the ‘future of Monaco’, saying it was up to his father to decide.

The mother-of-three hinted at a tension with Charlene, claiming the royal had made her son feel unwelcome during the early days of her relationship with Albert.

‘As for Charlene, this is a subject that I cannot avoid because we are often put in parallel. I don’t like being compared. I never advertised myself as an enemy. I am a gentle woman,’ she said. ‘Given our respective ties to the prince, we should have made sure to support each other cordially. In our situation, diplomacy had to prevail. But during the engagement period, I experienced things that alerted and shocked me. For example, she changed my son’s room, taking advantage of his father’s absence to move him to the employee wing. As a mother, I cannot find words to describe these actions.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Well well. Charlene moved Albert’s Black son to the servant’s quarters when Albert was away, and when Charlene was merely the fiancee? That says a lot about Charlene, my goodness. And Alexandre would have been just a little kid back then too! Anyway, the reason why I’m bringing up this Paris Match interview is because People Magazine published this very suspicious story last week:

Prince Albert and Princess Charlene’s relationship has caused plenty of tongues to wag during the couple’s 20 years together. However, one topic of much speculation — his children from previous relationships — has had a surprisingly unifying effect over time, a source suggests. A close friend of the couple tells PEOPLE in this week’s issue that Charlene, 43, has actually been a driving force behind Albert, 63, developing closer, more engaged relationships with his 29-year-old daughter Jazmin Grace Grimaldi and son Alexandre Grimaldi-Coste, 18.

Though there have been rumors the princess isn’t supportive of Albert’s relationships with his older children, the friend says that, on the contrary, “Charlene was really the one that was trying to pull the whole family together.”

Speaking exclusively with PEOPLE for this week’s issue, Albert himself affirmed that the relationship between his wife and his older children has “evolved with time. She is more acceptant now.”

The friend notes that Charlene’s encouragement comes with “certain boundaries and certain understandings. She’s really been the champion for these kids in some ways,” the source tells PEOPLE. “I’m not going to say she wants to have them around all the time, because there is some contention on many fronts.”

They also point out that “Charlene’s had her own issues. For quite a few months now, she’s been — whether physically or just from a health [perspective] — not accessible.”

While Albert is still in the active stage of raising his and Charlene’s 6-year-old twins — Prince Jacques and Princess Gabriella — the prince has previously said that he stays in regular contact with Jazmin Grace and Alexandre, who enters college this fall. Adds the friend, “Alexandre is just a delightful young man, growing up in a very strange situation…. Charlene has been keen on “making it easy for [Alexandre] to interact with Albert and was encouraging Albert toward embracing him as his child.”

[From People]

Now Charlene wants credit for Albert developing relationships with the children he hid for years, and Charlene wants everyone to know that she’s cool with Alexandre, despite what Nicole Coste says. And this is not a ringing endorsement from Albert: “She is more acceptant now.” It suggests that there were times when she was not “acceptant.” A giant mess. And I believe Nicole.

Saint Jean celebrations in Monaco

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, cover courtesy of Paris Match.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

141 Responses to “Princess Charlene put Albert’s son Alexandre in the servants’ quarters?!”

  1. Oh_Hey says:

    I mean she is a white woman from South Africa – I’m would not be shocked given that county’s too recent history.

    I’m glad that Albert acknowledged and seems to have cared for his older two kids tho and based on Jazmin’s socials that the two of them have a relationship with each other apart from the royals.

    • Smegmoria says:

      I mean….it would take a lot of emotional intelligence to fully accept the fact that your husband thinks it is cool to have children outside the relationship. The racism is def not cool. I dont know…she seems coerced from the get go.

      • VS says:

        so you mean she couldn’t leave in 2005? I am not buying that!!! she is a racist……

      • Q says:

        He had his son with nicole (his ex girlfriend) before he even met Charlene so that’s no excuse. In fact, he had both Alexandre and jazmin before he met Charlene.
        Alexandre was known to the public before he got with Charlene.

      • Bex says:

        His older child was born before Albert even met Charlene. Plus, if you’re involved with someone with kids, and can’t accept that (to the point you move a child to the servant quarters), then maybe that person needs to not be in that relationship. The children are innocent and should not EVER bear the brunt of the father’s failings.

      • Debbie says:

        @Smegmoria: I’m troubled by your initial leap to defend Charlene in a story stating that she moved her then-boyfriend/fiance’s son to the servants’ quarters. To make that defense, you used inaccurate data about this child who was born prior to Charlene’s marriage. As so many have said, if she was uncomfortable w/ Albert having kids, she should not have become involved w/ him. Then, you do a spin which would make Simone Biles jealous, you prop Charlene up as a victim in this. Hm.

        If Charlene was “compelled” or “coerced” into marrying Albert, I’m quite sure it was not the son’s doing. Also, even Charlene’s friend said she didn’t want Albert’s (older) kids around her all the time – that seems like an understatement. Additionally, even Albert said that Charlene was evolving, & just now getting better at dealing with his older kids. Nah, the child’s biological mother was telling the truth and seemed restrained about it too.

    • Saartjie says:

      As a white woman from South Africa, I have to say, I find your assumption extremely tiring. Are you perhaps a white woman from America or the United Kingdom? If so, its probably logical to assume the same thing about you.

      • Oh_Hey says:

        I’m black and my experiences with racism from folks from many countries, including Afrikaners formed that assumption. Are we really going to have a debate about the racist history of the country, the current treatment of native africans, the wealth disparities between races in SA, and the crime paranoia in wealthy areas there that’s really just thinly veiled racism — or are you gonna walk that fragile response back?

      • Capepopsie says:

        @Saartjie I fully agree! So tiring and preconceived. 😑

      • Lemons says:

        @Saartjie, please learn your country’s history. This would better inform your reaction to @Oh_Hey not being surprised at Charlene’s actions.

        No one said all white women from South Africa are racist. But if you need to get that defensive…👀

      • Green Desert says:

        Dear White People – please check yourself if you have a knee-jerk, defensive reaction when someone calls out racism. No one is saying YOU are racist.

        It shows a complete lack of understanding of the insidious nature of systemic racism to get defensive when someone points out the very recent history of legal racism in South Africa. It does not mean that we don’t know about the horrific recent history (and present) of the US. Pointing one out doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge the other. We’re specifically talking about a South African woman here.

        The real question should be, why do you feel so defensive?

      • Chana says:

        Oh please stop being so defensive. Sure, its not unreasonable to suggest a white person from the US or UK may have issues with race, dont think anyone here would care. At the same time, I’m pretty sure most commenters here were alive during apartheid. I’m Canadian. I’m not offended when people point out my country’s ongoing treatment of native people. Why would I be?

        As a personal anecdote, every South African I’ve ever met has been an unabashed bigot. You are welcome to have your own personal experiences with American or British people! Who cares.

      • MMadison says:

        White woman tears….cry me a river

      • Texans Hate Abbott says:

        Certainly, we all cringe at labels and stereotypes, & it’s good you apparently find racism to not be aligned with your values and potentially want to work towards a more peaceful future for all.

        That being said, I’m a White Woman from Texas, & I hear ya on being part of a group that sometimes gets over generalized in terms of racism… so, I’m here to tell you, respectfully: IF they’re not talking about you, THEN THEYRE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU!

        If you’re not a racist, bravo! Keep up the good work. But if you truly want to be anti-racist, then do the work to be a positive force for the world. No one called YOU a racist, so why do you need to weigh in here about “as a white woman from South Africa”?

        I get that it’s a really tense time there right now, & this is a complex issue. But you know what I find tedious? All the supposed advanced people in this world who want to fight being labeled as a racist INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY BEING ANTIRACIST.

        So again, if they’re not talking about you, they are not talking about you!

      • minime says:

        @Texans Hate Abbott This! Thank you! I will use that in future discussions “if they’re not talking about you, they are not talking about you!”. If you feel they are, maybe you should check your privilege, conscience and behavior.

      • Bex says:

        The lady doth protest too much, methinks…

      • Debbie says:

        My goodness, you were very quick to take offense at Oh_Hey’s statement which were fairly measured. Look at it this way, when a small minority spends many decades oppressing a large majority, then reap all the advantages out of that for years to come, they should not expect people to say “bygones” so soon after that system collapses nominally.

    • MMRB says:

      and this includes White women from all countries…Facts are facts, history is history

    • Saartjie says:

      OK, sorry, I shouldn’t have taken that tone with you. And there are a lot of racist white South Africans, I freely acknowledge that. The point I was trying to make is that there are also a hell of a lot of racists elsewhere, and it gets helluva tiring when people act like white South Africans are the gold standard of racism, like, at least we aren’t as bad as those guys. Because quite often actually they are.

      • MMadison says:

        But, but, but…..whataboutism

      • Indywom says:

        If you stood by and did nothing during apartheid, would that not make you racist? Just because you didn’t create the system, doesn’t mean you didn’t benefit from it and if you did nothing about it, well it is what is. An old American saying is “hit dogs holler the loudest.”

      • Ange says:

        I think the main point was that it’s a bit rich when people from *anywhere* try to tell those who have lived and experienced their country what their country is like. Like of course SA has had its issues with racism. So has America, so has UK, so has Australia etc. etc. etc. What I think the issue is that any one country is assuming the other is worse. We’ve all got disgusting colonial skeletons in our closet, pointing the finger elsewhere is pretty laughable from any of us.

      • I pet goat 2 says:

        But literally NOONE suggested that. The point was simply the chance of a white woman having been Born and raised in South Africa and her being racist are pretty high. No one (but specific white women commenting) made it a racism olympics, it was a factual statement

      • Debbie says:

        Saartjie & Ange, I think what most are saying is that when someone 1) takes offense easily at a factual statement about racist history, and 2) mentions another country w/ colonial history and segregation, as if to say “Don’t mention MY country because you’re not free from blame yourself” it suggests that they’re shutting down ANY discussions about racism. It’s like, let’s all be quiet and never mention this again. That attitude only serves the oppressors (whose misdeeds get conveniently forgotten) and their descendants (who continue to benefit from the poisonous system the oppressors set up, with themselves at the top). Point is, we’ve got to talk it – even though it makes some people uncomfortable.

  2. VS says:

    Please allow me to be shallow for a second: Alexandre is Albert’s most beautiful child!!!! wow, I had never heard of him
    As far as Charlene’s racism is concerned……….I should just stop! her kids are the recognized ones, why is she afraid of the others?

    • Amanda says:

      Ikr. He’s super handsome.

    • MoonTheLoon says:

      Because he’s the oldest son and will probably have his father’s ear sooner than her kids. I’m sure she has a sense of superiority because she’s his official consort and feels her children should outrank the “illegitimate” kids. I also wouldn’t discount whatever semblance of racism lurks in her mind/heart. Which pretty obviously exists, if she did this.

  3. Anners says:

    This does not surprise me, sadly. She’s South African – a country not really known for its racial tolerance. But it’s rotten to put a child in the servant’s quarters. Be mad at the parents, but the kid is an innocent.

  4. Becks1 says:

    This reads to me like something out of a gothic novel – the new wife is bitter about any other children and puts them into the tower. I mean heck its Cinderella! It’s the third Bridgerton book!

    If they have been together for almost 20 years and Alexandre was born in 2003, did Albert cheat on Charlize at the time? That would also explain some of the bitterness, even the bitterness and slow acceptance alluded to in the People article.

    That said – this was obviously a cruel move on Charlene’s part and I am kind of surprised it took so long to come out. I wonder what Albert’s reaction was.

    • VS says:

      “I wonder what Albert’s reaction was.” — I wonder about that too….hopefully he was furious and given it might not have happened again, Charlene probably heard from him! what a terrible behavior from a human being!!!

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Sounds to me that whomever is the “Carole Middleton” of Monaco does not like Charlene. This reads like hater-fiction to me. There is probably a grain of truth in this plate of gossip but I have trouble swallowing this story as a whole loaf of what really went down.

      • stagaroni says:

        I wondered about that too. I would not want to be in either woman’s shoes, but you know there has to be tension between them.

        I found an article from 2014 and Nicole said this at the time..‘The truth is that, I’m sorry to say, Albert hasn’t seen Alexandre since a brief visit last September. It has become impossible since he married that girl,’ she says referring to Charlene, 36. ‘I suppose as a new wife, how would one feel? But she should think about my innocent child. I don’t want to attack her but I think it is just jealousy and I don’t know why. I have been through hell in my fight for my son’s name and future.’

        She referred to her as “that girl” That is hardly ‘polite.’ Yes, Charlene should be kind and loving to their child, she is his step-mother, but most importantly, it is his father who bears the responsibility. And talking to the Daily Mail does nothing to help mend relationships.

        I feel sorry for Nicole, but I think her anger was misguided.
        It was Albert who publicly denied their child and put her squarely in the position she was in. He called ALL the shots. There are no winners in the adult category, and sadly, the child was caught in the middle of this mess that Albert created. I say put the blame where it belongs.

        The timing of all of this just seems…suspect.

    • Jo73c says:

      yes to the cheating – he’s fathered at least one more illegitimate child since they’ve been married

  5. A says:

    If that’s what Coste’s throwing out there now, I wonder what else she’s holding back about Charlene. I never liked Albert but it doesn’t sound like his wife is any good either. Let’s hope their kids have better role models in their lives.

  6. Lorelei says:

    According to the stated timeline, Charlene and Albert have been together 20 years and Alexandre is 18 so is the product of Albert cheating on her. So it kind of makes sense why she was not ‘acceptant’ of the kid at first. It’s clear she was angry about the whole situation and I can understand that, I would be too, but it seems she channeled her hurt toward an innocent child instead of the real problem which was Albert’s wondering dong.

    • Jess says:

      If it was the case, she could leave him then. Take it or leave it. I suppose she preferred to be pamper by the royal life.

      • FHMom says:

        Umm. Could she, though? I thought it was common knowledge that she had no choice but to stay.

      • lanne says:

        That might have been true in 2011 (the wedding was scheduled and the guests had arrived), but in 2005? Doubtful. Albert could have either married one of his sidepieces or found a new one.

      • Lemons says:

        In 2003/5 she definitely would have been able to leave. This was well before the marriage. But she was okay with the cheating and the love child and stayed.

    • Sid says:

      I am confused by the timeline mainly because I remember when Ms. Coste did the interview revealing that Albert was her son’s father, as it was a big deal. I don’t recall that Albert was seriously dating anyone at that time. But I wasn’t paying much attention to Albert’s love life outside of the gossip about how sleazy he was and how he chased anything that moved, so maybe I missed him and Charlene being a thing at that point.

  7. FancyPants says:

    I could see somebody bearing some resentment if their partner impregnated somebody else during their relationship, but that is not the child’s fault! Move Albert to the servant’s quarters.

  8. rainbowkitty says:

    This is not good but the part that hurts the most is that he would have been a little kid when she did that. Heartless, imo.

  9. Still_Sarah says:

    I noticed that Nicole makes a humble brag when she says Alexandre “has inherited my politeness. My great kindness”. Hmmm. She also says Charlene is a subject she “can’t avoid because we are often in parallel”. Well, no you’re not in parallel. Charlene is his wife of ten years and you are an ex-girlfriend who shares a child with him. You are not some kind of extra wife. I’m glad she and Albert have a respectful relationship now but that does not make her parallel or equal to his wife no matter the state of the marriage.

    • OriginalLala says:

      I’m hoping that was an issue with the translation because it’s super awkward and comes off oddly on her part doesnt it. Though, Charlene, my god, its not the the kid’s fault Albert is a serial cheater and can’t keep it holstered…

    • Myra says:

      Could it be a translation issue? Maybe her own statement meant that they are often pitted against each other in the media but that in reality she doesn’t consider herself to be Charlene’s enemy (rival?). I don’t think she is saying that she is the one doing the comparison.

      • LillyfromLillooet says:

        This reminds me of the problematic French verb “assister” which means to attend. Gerard Depardieu gave an interview in which the translation said he had assisted in raping women (does anyone else remember this?) and there was a whole scene. I remember thinking, he might have said he had witnessed violence against women, and that verb might have been mistranslated.

        I do 100% sign on to @Still_Sarah’s assessment of the self-serving humble brag.

        Most of all, I’m glad that Albert is a 100% monster. This is very welcome news.

      • LillyfromLillooet says:

        Yikes I meant to say, I’m glad that Albert is NOT a total monster!

      • Debbie says:

        It seemed she was saying they were often “compared” in the media. (wink-wink).

    • Seraphina says:

      Something seems off with what she said and yes it is a humble brag. There are a lot of dynamics involved here and it makes for true soap opera.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Seraphina : Yes, the Grimaldis of Monaco have always excelled at bringing the drama and a pretty trashy version too. Remember the time Princess Stephanie who had two kids with her bodyguard, then ran off to the circus (literally) and had another child with an acrobat?

    • MissMarirose says:

      yeah, i noticed that humble brag too. odd.


        It caught me off guard but I re-read and it’s “we are often put in parallel.” Clearly she could be the one putting them in parallel herself but I think the language is less weird than “we are often in parallel.”

    • Va Va Kaboom says:

      Coste is VERY careful to compliment all things Albert, which gets cringe by the middle of her statements. It’s quite clear she doesn’t want to rock the boat with him at all. Which reinforces my belief the marriage is over.

      To my knowledge, she wasn’t saying anything about Charlene before her exodus from Monaco. The evil stepmother move happened a decade or more ago and we’re only hearing about it now. She obviously feels like she can talk about Charlene now without fear of repercussions from Albert.

    • Killfanora says:

      Still_Sarah, I totally agree with you. Humble-brag…tick. Thinking she has equal status to a wife…tick. Pushy parent….tick. Nasty to wife….tick. Thinks a lot of herself….tick.

      • Debbie says:

        How is Nicole a “pushy parent”? And if she has information that Charlene relocated her son to lesser quarters, why should she be complimentary to her? As to “Thinks a lot of herself,” is there any reason why she shouldn’t?

  10. Snuffles says:

    Why they insist on continuing this charade of a marriage is beyond me.

  11. rawiya says:

    I believe Nicole. And putting the black child in the “servants’” quarters? I know she wouldn’t have pulled that nonsense with Jazmine. And how lovely of her to be accepting of his children who are hardly ever around, and who were minors at the time! She’s awful, like her stupid haircut.

    • lanne says:

      Well, in the UK they put Harry and Meghan in servants quarters so maybe it’s a royal thing??

      • Emmitt says:

        And what color is Meghan???

      • lanne says:

        That’s my point, Emmitt!! Royals put black people in servants quarters! It’s a royal thing–royals are the epitome of white supremacy after all. I used to think that royals understood that, and took deliberate actions to be open and welcoming in light of it. Ooh boy was I wrong!!

    • SMS says:

      Alexandre was acknowledged pretty early but it took Albert years to acknowledge Jazmin Grace. She didn’t even meet him until she was 11. He clearly has issues with his out of wedlock children of all races. I wonder how old this rumored third child is.

  12. Sofia says:

    It’s not right but I can’t say I’m surprised. A lot of women would be upset if their boyfriend (her and Albert were together I believe since 2000) had a child with someone else. It’s not Alexandre’s fault nor was Charlene justified in changing his rooms, but I understand why she was not accepting of Alexandre.

    • VS says:

      then why not leave Albert? now we have to accept her racism towards a little child because she was hurt? her issue was with Albert not Alexandre

      • Sofia says:

        I literally said Charlene was not justified in her behaviour? Saying I understand someone’s feelings about a situation does not mean I condone the behaviour she took about said situation.

      • stagaroni says:

        @vs….she did try to leave Albert three times before the wedding, and each time she was brought back. She cried on her wedding day. I don’t think there is anything about this situation that makes her happy, and it sounds as if she was a prisoner. It is the stuff of horror movies.

    • minime says:

      that makes no sense. She should not be accepting the at the time boyfriend cheating not a child that has no fault of who his father is. If she couldn’t accept the child she should leave and not bring an innocent in the middle of her “feelings” for a multiple time cheater.

  13. LovesitinNM says:

    What a terrible white supremacist situation. Royal ‘blood’ only counts if the couple is married? Why?! Help them all into the year 2021 and make the first two children his heirs! (To the Kingdom) Come on now.

    • Seraphina says:

      This has been the rule of thumb through the ages – children outside the marriage are not recognized regardless of their mother. Because, if they were, there would be no reason to ever get married and for the wife to stick around.
      Being mother to the future heir has some perks to it – ask Kate.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I agree that “illegitimate” children should be included in the line of succession. HOWEVER, if we’re talking about what is really “fair” as far as the throne goes, then Caroline should be on the throne, and HER first born should be first in line to the throne. The only reason Alexander’s father is on the throne at all, is *because* their constitution is not fair to begin with. If it was fair, Alexander would definitely be in the line of succession, but he would be below Caroline and her descendants.

      At the very least (if we go with the argument that it’s too late to recognize Caroline and her kids as heirs), then Albert’s first child, Jazmin, should be first in line to the throne.

      Edited to add: Actually, if the situation was truly fair, the position would be an elected one.

  14. Lauren says:

    Racist and cruel to a child because her man is a cheater? Yikes. Nope, nope, nope. I was rooting for you Charlene.

  15. Ana Maria says:

    …the plot thickens…

    • Seraphina says:

      OH YES IT DOES. It’s like a bad plot twist of the 80′s Dynasty show. So many characters, so much going on behind the scenes and so many layers. Good grief.
      One thing I am curious about, why is this coming out now? I believe her, but why now?

    • Va Va Kaboom says:

      When The Crown eventually wraps Netflix needs to start working on The Principality. It would be amazing.

  16. Maria says:


  17. Lexistential says:

    Oh no you didn’t, Charlene. That racist, demotive BS *to a child* killed a chunk of my sympathy for her. I believe Nicole.

  18. Ainsley7 says:

    Yeah, I don’t completely believe Nicole. Quotes like “Alexandre inherited my politeness, my great kindness.” and “ Given our respective ties to the prince, we should have made sure to support each other cordially. In our situation, diplomacy had to prevail.” Don’t line up with her dropping a bomb about Charlene. Like, why is Nicole bring this up now? It’s been eleven years. Charlene is obviously pretty sick right now and the press has been bullying her for being in South Africa all summer. Why pile on if you are so polite, kind, supportive and diplomatic?

    I also have questions about her story about putting her son in the “employee wing.” This allegedly happened some time between June 2010 and July 2011. While it was a room in the “employee wing” it could also have just been a room closer to his nanny. I can also think of at least two reasons this may have happened. The first simply being not enough room. The Royals have had to do that at Sandringham at Christmas when there are a lot of guests. Charlene may have had a lot of her family and friends staying there. The second being that she was having a rough time because it turned out that Albert had a second secret child. It’s not pretty, but I kinda get her not wanting to be constantly reminded of the situation. It sucks, but Albert should have made arrangements for Alexander to stay with his mother while he was gone anyway. Sensitivity has never been his strong suit.

    All that being said, Nicole has fought hard for Alexander to not only be recognized, but also made a prince. It’s rumored that she wants Alexander to be legitimatized as Albert’s first son and heir. She would have to marry Albert in a Catholic wedding in order for that to happen though. It hasn’t really stopped her from pushing for it and she’s also spread dirt on Charlene for years. So, I just don’t think her motives here are pure.

    • Saartjie says:

      This is kind of what I was wondering. Basically, this is an allegation from one person, with her own agenda, and its happening while something weird is going on in the background and Charlene appears to be particularly vulnerable. Not saying that Nicole is lying, just that I don’t think this is enough information to condemn Charlene.

    • Seraphina says:

      This is the first I have heard of her spreading dirt on PC. Do tell……..
      I agree, her intentions are not pure here and the timing makes me wonder why this came out now BUT if she has been doing this kind of commentary for a while on PC, I do not question the timing.

    • JMoney says:

      The fault lies with Albert at the end of the day. Whether or not Charlene did that intentionally or she did that b/c there was not enough room given that she also had her family staying and wanted to at least give Albert’s son a room in the palace, we don’t know. Clearly the optics aren’t great but why didn’t Albert make sure his kid and it is his kid was accommodated adequately nor why wasn’t he involved?

      • Asking for a friend says:

        Wrong – the stepmother is also a parent, like it or not. She shouldn’t have done this to a child, as none of this is his fault. I get the possibility about the rooms (enough room, closer to nanny, etc.), but that’s a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away a situation like this. There’s no way I would ever condone another woman doing that to my kid – we would have had a score to settle (and maybe that’s what is playing out now). For the record, I also don’t condone the cheating and babies by mistresses. This is messy and unfortunate for everyone, except maybe Prince Albert…he doesn’t seem to care.

    • Susie says:

      @ainsley7 Hmmm I feel like those are a lot of assumptions and reaches. Alexander isn’t holidaying with his dad and close to the nanny is a very different context than employee section. I think it’s what you said at the end. Charlene doesn’t want to see alberts kid conceived when he was cheating on her. Add that the kid is black and a “bastard” in those circles I can see Charlene thinking she can get away with this with no trouble except by the boys “unimportant” black mother. I would also find that a very bold lie to tell while you are coparenting. A lie that explosive would be corrected because what it says about Charlene is really bad and racist. If it isn’t corrected then either Albert is okay with people thinking this about Charlene or it’s true.
      As for the mother pushing for her son if your son were excluded due to your marital status with the father and if this story is true sent to the employee sectionals a kid I would be annoyed too. If this is what she revealed then what has she kept quiet. Most likely she just wants to make sure her son is always protected especially financially something that is extra sensitive because he is also black and it took time for Albert to acknowledge him. In those circles being black comes with alot of implicit and explicit racism.
      Nevermind that this whole interview was translated from French to English and I think Unless you are a native French speaker which the original article I don’t think it is easy to read between the lines or tone/shadiness.
      This whole situation is a soap opera and while Alberta is the absolute worst character involved that doesn’t absolve Charlene of her behaviour to his kids.

    • Annabel says:

      I wondered the same thing. Obviously it’s a terrible look, but also it isn’t crazy for a young child staying in your home to be moved to a bedroom closer to his live-in nanny? I’d just like to hear if there’s another side to this before I write her off as an irredeemable racist.

    • Val says:

      @ainsley7 That was a lot of mental gymnastics to justify her placing THE BLACK CHILD IN THE SERVANTS QUARTERS! Lol, there was no other place to move him? Just stop. Are you her spokesperson or something? This is gaslighting at its finest!

      • Debbie says:

        Oh but Val, some random person has speculated that Charlene was absolutely correct in her actions because Charlene only wanted to put the child close to his nanny (who I must have missed in the original story). You see, Charlene is a VERY concerned stepparent – even though she doesn’t want these older kids around. Also, Charlene’s family were in town for an imaginary visit says some random poster. Plus, let’s not forget this chateau is magically small, and there was not enough room for one small boy. Luckily, there was plenty of room in the servants’ quarters. Somehow, although said servants’ quarters were good enough for the child, they were not suitable for Charlene’s visiting family and friends. That is SOME reach by those who insist on giving Kate (I mean Charlene) the benefit of the doubt.

    • FHMom says:

      I’m taking all of this with a grain of salt. There is a lot of sh** stirring going on here. Alexandre’s mom has an agenda. Why is she even sharing a cover with him? He is gorgeous and can carry the cover on his own.

      • Val says:

        White woman from SA, placing the black child with the servants. I can 100% see that happening. I’ve been to SA and the racism is bone deep.

    • Green Desert says:

      OMG, lots of bending over backwards in this thread and post to defend Charlene and question Nicole’s motives. Can we all just agree the Grimaldis are MESSY? All of them? Not saying Nicole has pure intentions, but geez people.

    • Bex says:

      Maybe she’s doing it now because her son is an adult, and doesn’t HAVE to be around those people unless he wants to.

      • sunny says:

        This part. The justifying on this thread is fully wild. Sure the timing is suspect and she no doubt has her own motives(her son’s protection) but anyone denying how horrible it was that she put a BLACK child in the servant’s quarters or those trying to deny it happened are engaging in racism. One of the most important things we can do is give weight to be people’s lived experience- when people of colour tell you what their experiences are, it is essential to believe them. The way this thread ties to negate that is a lot.

  19. Imara219 says:

    I don’t care if her motives aren’t pure. Putting a Black child in the servants quarters is a statement, a racist statement.

  20. erni says:

    I don’t know. I think Charlene is seeking divorce and this is just Albert throwing her to the wolves. I can imagine William do the same thing if he divorces Kate.

  21. aquarius64 says:

    At first I felt sorry for Charlene but not after this. It’s doesn’t matter if Albert was creeping on her – was within her right to be – you don’t take it out on the child. Alex is also a reminder that had Albert married his mother and Alex were conceived and born in that marriage he would be the hereditary prince not Jacques. I think Albert is ready to toss Charlene. The sussecion is secure with her kids.

  22. Erica says:

    Wow, Nicole is gorgeous. Love that lipstick. Wish I could pull off a bold lip without looking too costume-y.

  23. I wonder if Prince Albert knows she is about to file for divorce any minute and this is actually coming from him. No better time to ruin her reputation than now. Or maybe I’m just jaded from another royal family’s dedication to destroying an innocent woman’s reputation via constant lies and gaslighting…

    • Lemons says:

      Can you imagine the hysteria if they divorce then Albert marries Nicole and makes Alexandre his legitimate heir. Monaco’s royal family is just crazy enough for this to happen.

      • Fortuona says:

        He cannot do that

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        @Fortuona Yeah he could. Monaco’s succession laws allow for children born out of wedlock to be automatically legitimated by the parents of said child marrying after the fact in a Catholic ceremony, with no time limits on this. As the oldest legitimate child, Alexandre would come before Charlene’s kids.

  24. Angelica Schuyler says:

    Well, well… Princess Charlene “modernizing” Monaco by importing apartheid to the palace…..

    There’s no defense for this type of behavior. It’s deplorable. Do you think Charlene would ever, for one minute, let someone put her lily white children to stay in the servants quarters? How many heads would roll? How quickly?

    I have no sympathy for her anymore.

    • Hj says:

      Seriously. And the people defending her behavior or creating some fake scenario where this would be appropriate are really telling on themselves.

  25. TheOriginalMia says:

    I find Nicole’s story interesting. When has Charlene ever had any power in this relationship? Would the palace really listen to her and move Albert’s child from his suites to put him in the stables? Solely on Charlene’s command? Nah. Sorry. She may not have liked Alexandre, but he’s still Albert’s son. She was very much the girlfriend/fiancée. She would have had to get permission and approval for such a move and that put the onus on the ones in power at that time. So, I take this with a grain of salt and kicking a rival while she’s down.

    • Bex says:

      If Albert has told all his employees to do as Charlene commands, then of course she can tell them to house Alexandre where ever she sees fit.

      I don’t get the need to portray her as powerless.

    • Debbie says:

      Maybe Charlene cried. I hear that’s effective.

      OMG, when has Charlene had power? When it’s between her and a biracial child. Would you really expected the white household staff to stand up for him, rather the woman Albert is going to marry? Jeez. Keep fighting sanity.

  26. Coco says:

    Why I’m I not surprised to see people falling over themselves to excuse this racist behavior .

  27. Haylie says:

    She can try to excuse Albert all she wants, but if he let that go on (I don’t believe he was away), then he’s to blame too. Nicole forgets that her knight in shining armor wouldn’t even acknowledge her son until the courts made him do a DNA test, and he stayed with Charlene.

    I believe what she says about Charlene mistreating her son, but I find Nicole shady for refusing to see the real source of the problem – just like Charlene.

    • Q says:

      If nicole says Albert was unaware then I believe her. Why on earth would she lie about that? Furthermore, Albert has always been in his oldest sons life. There are plenty of photos with them together since he was a baby. DNA tests are standard. Of course he was always going to need to do a dna test.
      I remember when nicole and Albert were dating, he did in fact ask her to marry him and asked his father for permission but his father said no, even though he was said to have liked nicole very much. He simply couldn’t approve of it because Albert needed an appropriate (read: white) heir.
      Albert, just like his dad, did not marry for love.

      • SueBarbri says:

        100% Q. And come to think of it, maybe the relationship between Albert and Nicole is the background noise that has caused the weirdness behind his marriage to Charlene.

      • Haylie says:

        These are all excuses. That man knew what was going on and did not want to acknowledge his son in public. This is repeat behavior for him. He’s even got another paternity suit he’s fighting now.

        Wicked stepmothers flourish when lazy, uncaring dads set the tone. I’d never marry someone who resented my kids, even if it is my fault for cheating.

      • stagaroni says:

        Nicole told the magazine Paris Match over a decade ago that her relationship with Albert had cooled down but she wanted to spend her birthday with him. She called it a night of destiny, saying a baby wasn’t planned. When she told Albert about the pregnancy, he said, “I don’t promise I will marry you, but keep it and don’t worry,” according to the magazine.

        Albert was not the marrying kind back then, he just toyed with women…in fact, it seems he is still doing so. Yes, Nicole might believe him, but sadly, he is a known manipulator of the truth.

  28. purple prankster says:

    I’m not supporting Charlene but this is Alberts fault. First bringing in a wife who was resentful of his existing children. Then not putting his foot down about their treatment.

  29. Coco says:

    For all the people questioning her motive for bringing up what happen to her son now and not years ago. My question to you is did you question Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein victims for bringing up what happened to them years after the fact? If not the keep that same energy.

    • stagaroni says:

      Comparing sexual assault victims and the mother of a child who has made comments about the child’s stepmother in the past is hardly the same. These are people with a past, and an ugly one at that, and Nicole has done things to irritate Albert and Charlene in the past. She took a pap stroll in Monaco on the night before their wedding and told the press she was ‘I was fed up being a secret.’

      For some reason, she seems to have still been in love with that creep Albert. She still defends him and pits the blame on Charlene because it makes it easier to digest, I suppose. That, and I’m fairly certain Albert blames Charlene when he doesn’t fulfil his duties as a parent.

      Just do a Google search of all the drama. It has been going on for a long time.

  30. Mcmmom says:

    I take everything related to the Royals with a giant grain of salt.

    My affluent great aunt and uncle had a beautiful home with three main guest rooms and servant’s quarters – both a separate bedroom for the nanny and a whole separate house for the butler. The nanny’s room was adorable and the coziest bedroom room in the house and the little side house offered more privacy than the main house, so I gladly slept in either one of the servant’s quarters when I stayed there. There was a lot of pressure to be “on” in the main house, whereas I could relax in the butler’s house. I also had an old house that had a maid’s room that was detached from the house. I turned it into the guest room, which my family liked because it had more privacy than staying in the main house. I’ve stayed in old hotels where the servant’s quarters have been turned into separate guest rooms.

    Not that any of us are the future king and queen of Monaco, but without seeing the layout of the house, I’m not sure whether to be alarmed by this or not.

  31. Athena says:

    @Mcmmom , it doesn’t matter how nice or comfortable the room is, if you’re a black person and you’re moved to the servants quarters it hurts. For Nicole to bring it up all these years later means it was a hurtful thing for her when she found out and obviously it still bothers her. When co parenting you’re very mindful about how your child is treated when spending time with the other parent and their significant other.
    As a black person it bothers me when I go to a restaurant and they try to sit me by the kitchen. A white person may not think twice about it or take offense but it bothers me.

    • Mcmmom says:

      Athena – editing this to say, I hear what you’re saying and I understand why being seated near a kitchen would be hurtful in a way that I would probably not even notice. You are of course correct – I don’t get it and there is no way I could, so I understand that my POV isn’t all that relevant.

      My point was that old houses (and I presume palaces) have all sorts of weird rooms that get re-purposed (like boiler rooms). I appreciate what you’re saying that if that’s how it felt to the son or his mom, that’s what matters. My question (perhaps not worded very well) is: was the incident insensitive AND deliberately mean? Or primarily insensitive and misguided, but not wicked?

  32. Susie says:

    I find the justifications for charlenes alleged behaviour to be very fascinating. People are reaching all over the place to absolve her of any malice or guilt. From making it a misunderstanding to Nicole being a jealous hater. When th fact that Alexander is alberts illegitimate black son means he probably experienced a lot of implicit and very explicit racism. From Charlene, from staff and courtiers and even from Albert himself. It should be easier to believe Nicole then look for all these excuses. Charlene didn’t like the reminder of being cheated on and the fact that the boy and his mom were black made it easy for her to punish them and Albert probably with the help of staff. Especially since Monaco doesn’t like Charlene he was probably the only one that she could attack with support of staff. Of course Nicole wouldn’t like the person that did this to her son and if given a chance would be unflattering to Charlene especially after the weird past few months. Also I would expect her to understand if it was a faraway room or her son being explicitly sent to the employees area. If this is a story she is revealing publicly imagine the relationships behind the scenes. I also think it’s very interesting that no one has denied the claim. This is a pretty big claim and damaging publicity. I said earlier either Albert wants this known to hurt charlenes pubic image or the story is true. Nicole has probably had to deal with alot being a black woman raising the illegitimate black son of Albert. Lying about something like this would be very risky. Especially since no ones really heard from her since Alex was young.

    • I pet goat 2 says:

      Agreed. Charlene has positioned herself (and to some extent, quite rightfully I’m sure) as the victim in the discourse around the family dynamics of this family. Since she inhabits that space and is white and female, it seems hard for some commenters to allow for nuance — she might have been wronged in many ways, she might also have done what Nicole is saying (which I believe) That’s despicable and can be true at the same time.

  33. Mia4s says:

    Oh dear, that part about Alexandre playing some part in Monaco’s future and it being “up to his father”?

    Oh honey no, no it’s not.

    I’m glad if his relationship with his father is good, but get that young man a great education and career path because the Royal establishment in Monaco is not going to let him anywhere near a Royal role. That just makes me sad to read on the off chance she really thinks that.

    • L4frimaire says:

      It seems like these women are being played, against each other and by palace PR, and hope it’s not at the expense of this young man.

  34. Chana says:

    I believe this. Can’t believe people are defending Charlene. Also thought it was bizarre how many people defended her leaving her kids for a year. It was very weird, no matter how you looked at it! Yes Albert is a deadbeat/POS, but I get the impression she’s super….unbalanced. And has been for a while.

    I felt sorry for her during the wedding, but she was never trapped. This was never a “The Firm” scenario, she wasn’t a 19 year old girl. They’ve been together for two decades.

  35. Here4Tea says:

    On a purely superficial note; the novel “Killer Queens,” by Rebecca Chance, has protagonists who have a lot in common with A and C.
    It is a good read and laugh-out-funny. It’s also quite filthy.

  36. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    What an utterly shitty thing to do to a child. Jfc.

    • L4frimaire says:

      It really is both immature and mean. Albert has two children from before he was married to Charlene. She had to know the score and to act like this is unnecessary. She doesn’t have to be their best friend but at least be decent. Meanwhile, Albert took a long time to acknowledge these children and only did it because the press and DNA made him come clean. Old boy needs a vasectomy.

  37. Premadonna says:

    I have to say, I initially had a sympathetic view of Charlene, back when she was about to marry Albert and supposedly tried to flee to the South African embassy or something like that. But the more I read about her, the less I like her. After all, to me it looks more and more like she married Albert for the lifestyle (and he married her for the need for “legitimate” heirs), I’ve just never sensed any real chemistry between the two. Ironically, the more I hear about Albert, the more I like HIM! Shame on Charlene for treating a innocent child like that. I believe Nicole.

  38. livealot says:

    Yes publicizing that she was the driving force of keeping all his kids together WHILE behaving the exact opposite is par the course for Karens and Kates (middleton). bye racist bish

  39. canichangemyname? says:

    I care nothing about any of these people, and the little I know about them comes from this blog. But didn’t she possibly try to get out of the relationship altogether? It sounds like she definitely feels/felt threatened by children from outside relationships and good relationships with those children and their mothers. Did racism play a part? I don’t think it’s fair to assume that, but it’s certainly possible. Also, the People excerpt doesn’t sound like it came from her – if it did, she needs better people writing this stuff because it’s not flattering. The whole thing is a mess, I hope everyone comes out of this okay.

  40. Sinéad says:

    They’re definitely getting divorced. The whole ‘Albert made a commitment from the start to be present, and to gradually bring his son into his family’ is BS. Albert completely denied his child. I think this is the start of a massive smear against Charlene. There’s a mention of Nicole wanting Alexandre to have a bigger role in the monarchy – and he should – but is this the the payoff for this article? I’d side eye that tidbit. C is prob a piece of sh1t but this is definitely the start of a palace sanctioned smear. Either that or I’ve been completely corrupted by the U.K. royals

    • L4frimaire says:

      I know some people don’t like Charlene, but this article does seem suspicious. There was a lot of sympathy for her recently and that she should break free from Albert. Now we’re getting wicked stepmother tales. Putting the kid in the servants quarters was inexcusably wrong but it’s weird how this is being framed. 20 years is a massive age gap, it’s obvious she has very little agency and powerless people exercise what little power they have in petty ways. Yeah and she has probably, whether consciously not , been conditioned to think a certain way about Albert’s son ( yep, racist). I’m not sure if I feel sorry for her, but let’s see if the palace machine will do what it always does when it comes to inconvenient people.

      • Tatyana says:

        I completely agree. All of a sudden Charlene is a racist wicked stepmother. I just loathe that everyone jumped on hate wagon based on a story told from Nicole’s perspective. It’s so trendy now to cancel people

      • Feeshalori says:

        The timing of this article is exceedingly suspicious, l have to think. Charlene is getting a lot of sympathetic press lately regarding her health and the state of her marriage and this looks aimed to smear her. I’m not saying that what she did was right, but timing is everything in the telling of this tale.

      • LovesitinNM says:

        I do take exception to this comment about not believing a woman of color when she tells us something racist happened.

        This is not it. Please do better.

  41. Aurelia says:

    Let’s chalk up another nepotism model

  42. Rea says:

    Yeah this interview seems of BS. No way is Albert a kind human being the forced wedding with C?; Not kind. As for the child come on would a mom leave their child with their stepmother knowing there is friction? F## no. At least someone with sense would not. C should have been upfront and said sorry but wait until A comes back rather than putting the kid in a servants quarters. This while royal family is a rollercoaster.

  43. Mommystears says:

    I’m guessing the mother and Princess are equal because the mother is still sleeping with the Prince.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Thank you!

Leave a comment