King Charles’s valet was responsible for caring for his teddy bear well into his 40s

Christopher Andersen’s new book is The King: The Life of Charles III. Andersen must have thrown this together in a month, either that or he was already working on it when QEII passed away and Andersen managed to do a quick rewrite and title change. The book is being widely excerpted, to the point where I feel no need to actually seek out the book and read the whole thing. Andersen isn’t an anti-Sussex deranger – he’s pretty shady about almost every royal figure, and this book is making it perfectly clear that King Charles has been an a–hole all of his life. Anyway, here’s more from the book – Charles is obsessed with his teddy bear to a bonkers degree, and Charles bullies gardeners.

The teddy bear: King Charles was attached to his childhood teddy bear well into adulthood, according to a new book. The now-king’s former trusted valet, Michael Fawcett, was in charge of caring for the stuffed animal — when Charles was in his forties. Anytime the toy needed mending, the royal’s former nanny Mabel Anderson was brought out of retirement to make the necessary repairs. According to a former valet, the retired nanny “was the only human being allowed to take needle and thread to Prince Charles’ teddy bear. He was well into his forties, and every time that teddy needed to be repaired, you would think it was his own child having major surgery,” Andersen writes.

More on Michael Fawcett’s duties: Valet Fawcett was also in charge of squeezing toothpaste onto the then-Prince of Wales’ monogrammed toothbrush, shaving his face, helping him put on trousers and lacing up his shoes. He laid out the royal’s pajamas and turned down his bed nightly.

The Highgrove gardeners: The gardening staff at Charles’ Highgrove estate were expected to live up to his exacting standards as well. The head gardener, Andersen writes, woke up every day to a list of “instructions and complaints written by his boss in red ink.” The then-prince would stand on his porch and, if not happy with the job being done by landscapers, allegedly bark orders at them through a green megaphone.

Charles the bully: “For someone who said he was bullied as a child, Prince Charles clearly enjoyed bullying us,” a Highgrove staffer told Andersen. “He could be pleasant and courteous, but just as much of the time, he was moody and mean. He didn’t think twice about shouting insults at you if you put a foot wrong.” Another former valet, Ken Stronach — who was, for many years, in charge of hand-washing the prince’s underwear and tucking him into bed with his beloved teddy — concurred. Stronach claims in the book to have seen Charles, in the midst of an argument with his then-wife, Princess Diana, grab a heavy wooden bootjack and throw it at her, narrowly missing her head.

The time Charles pulled a sink out of the wall: Another time, Charles, who was staying at a posh friend’s villa in the South of France, allegedly grew enraged when he accidentally lost one of his cufflinks down a bathroom sink. “Flying into a blind rage, he pulled the sink off the wall, then smashed it, looking for the cufflink,” Andersen writes. “Unable to find the missing jewelry, a wild-eyed Prince of Wales spun around and grabbed his valet by the throat. Stronach broke free, darted out a side door — and into a linen closet. Terrified, he huddled there for thirty minutes before he could hear Charles leave the bathroom.”

[From Page Six]

The teddy bear thing… like, I think it’s fine for adults to have sentimental attachments to their childhood toys or comfort objects. Did Charles take it too far? Yes. I’m much more curious about the bullying stories. We’ve always known that when the royals accused the Duchess of Sussex of bullying, it was always projection on their part – Charles has made his staffers’ lives hellish for decades, William is always flying into rages and screaming at people, the Anmer Hall staffers loathe Carole Middleton barking orders at them and playing queen of the manor, and none of them can “keep staff” because they treat their employees like garbage. But please, tell me again how Meghan sent a 5 am email.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

142 Responses to “King Charles’s valet was responsible for caring for his teddy bear well into his 40s”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    He sounds insane. Entitled and spoiled, yes. But also insane.

    This book sounds made up. But if it’s not, this king of yours is mad in more ways than one. And he should be dethroned, post haste.

    • Nutella toast says:

      I don’t think those stories are made up. They have such specificity and details that no one would think to make up. I work around forensic interviewers every day and they strike me as true especially given what we all saw with the pen. That’s the kind of person that does this. The allegations against Megan were always broad and with very little specificity. That always smacks of false reporting.

      • Lorelei says:

        Uh, what exactly was going on with this teddy bear that it continued needing “mending with a needle and thread” even after Charles was well into his 40’s? 👀
        I sure hope that’s made up, but it is a bizarre thing to make up.
        And since Chuck won’t STFU about anything else that displeases him, you’d think he’d be loudly denying this asap.

      • Chicken says:

        @Lorelai: This is NOT defending Charles, he sounds like a nightmare, but I, as a full grown adult, may still have a blankie and a puffalump, and that puffalump needs mending from time to time (my pets like to play with it). But I take a needle and thread to it myself, and don’t really care if it’s not perfect anymore, because it’s been around for 30+ years.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I’m with Lorelei on this one. I still have my stuffed Dalmatian that I got at one year old & because I played with it, slept with it, traveled with it, it got pretty grubby after awhile; for years my mom would unstitch it at the neck, take out the stuffing, wash it & hang dry (which freaked me out a bit!), then re-stuff & re-stitch. I have not had to mend that doggie myself in all this time–nor did I ask my mother!. If it’s just sitting on a shelf, in pride of place, it shouldn’t need continual mending.

    • DouchesOfCambridge says:

      There must have been a story with the stuffed animal, you got the king who takes care of his teddy in his fortu and then you get PedoAndrew with all the stuffed animal on his bed that needed to be placed in certain way according to a photo

      • Lux says:

        My guess is with cold, absentee parents like QE and Phillip, the stuffed animals were basically their “Wilsons.”

      • Princessk says:

        Yes, having an attachment to stuffed animals apparently says something.

    • Princessk says:

      While l think this author has exaggerated certain things for effect, we have all known that several members of the RF bully staff and yet the Palace went after Meghan.
      After many decades l still have the Teddy l had when l was six months old. But l laughed at ‘
      The toothpaste on toothbrush old story as we all know refers to when Charles broke his arm.
      The washbasin incident sounds terrifying if true……the Kings single cuff link lies in a drain somewhere, it was probably a family heirloom.

    • Princessk says:

      While l think this author has exaggerated certain things for effect, we have all known that several members of the RF bully staff, and yet the Palace went after Meghan. Also remember that staff welcomed Camilla because she was able to calm Charles down. Staff recollect that his own maternal grandfather had a vicious temper.
      After many decades l still have the teddy l had when l was six months old. But l laughed at …..’every time that teddy had to be repaired you would think his own child was undergoing major surgery’….😂
      The toothpaste on toothbrush old story as we all know refers to when Charles broke his arm.
      The washbasin incident sounds terrifying if true……the Kings single cuff link lies in a drain somewhere, it was probably a family heirloom.

  2. Roo says:

    He’s a mess, made possible by childhood neglect, lack of affection, and endless power and wealth. This man is not fit to rule a piece of the sidewalk, much less a country. Now we know where Normal Bill’s rages come from and why Camilla lives apart from him.

    • Jessamine says:

      This. The product of neglect and trauma, insulated by wild privilege, perpetuating the cycle of neglect and trauma.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      I just don’t think it’s possible for somebody to be brought up as heir to throne without it warping them. Windsors take it to extremes, though, and have been for generations. Bringing up children who are surrounded by staff, not family, in an institution that formalises the Golden Child/Scapegoat roles that you get in families with narcissistic parents, with the Golden Child told that they’re chosen by god to rule over everybody creates monsters. You’d think they’d have learned by now.

      • Margaret says:

        I agree. That system has to screw with your psyche. A few of them do learn, but they escape. The rest are trapped there and they don’t learn a thing and they stay and raise a new generation of these damaged individuals.

  3. GirlOne says:

    I feel like this teddy bear thing is an in-joke for royal staffers. Something they tell “journalists” to see if they print it. There was a similar story about Andrew, no?

    • amyb says:

      If you watch the new documentary On Andrew, you’ll see he had a giant Teddy bear who was dressed up in his quarters. So thinking not a lie.

    • Sugarhere says:

      If someone was in charge of pressing toothpaste on his toothbrush 😳 and pulling his pants up 😯, then who was in charge of wiping off his ass quagmire? There must have been (still be?) someone, I can garantee you.

      If everything had run smoothly, there’s no way Meghan and her husband would have remained part of the Royal Family’s level of insanity. They would have felt compelled to leave out of sheer common sense.

      • Sue E Generis says:

        I suspect you’re right. If it’s beneath them to squeeze their own toothpaste, there’s no way they would deign to wipe their own asses. Someone’s doing it for them.

      • Lissen says:

        The Groom of the Stool wipes off the monarch’s ass. Yep, apparently it’s a real honour and a very important position at court.

      • Tacky says:

        The groom of the stool no long exists. The position was created because Henry VIII was a massive hypochondriac and needed all of his bodily functions closely examined and montitored.

      • Sugarhere says:

        If you think the groom of the s… position no longer exists, you might want to think twice. What part do you think Angela Kelly – the last female representative of the job – played to a decaying 96-year-old Queen. Of course, they’re not going to scream this on every rooftop.

      • Gabby says:

        In that case, @Sugarhere, then Anglea Kelly deserves whatever jewels she absconded with.

      • Princessk says:

        The toothpaste story relates to when he broke his arm.

    • Tacky says:

      They are emotionally attached to their teddy bears because that was their only source of comfort and affection as children. Liz and Phil were crap parents.

      • Sugarhere says:

        I’m fine with the Teddy bear part, that I didn’t mention. My main issue is with the gestures of every day life that the Royals delegate to their subordinates (whom they regard as inferiors) as if they were physically incapacitated. How difficult is it to press a toothpaste tube? This is a caste distribution of roles that asserts unmerited power and perpetrates dominance. That’s all I have.

      • Eleonor says:

        I am 41 and I love my Teddy bear !
        BUT I need to say this.
        I work in customer service, for ueber rich people.
        And I swear what it’s really striking, shocking is how they are totaly uncapable to solve a basic problem. Like they are unfit to the world live in.
        I mean today we had a scene because a customer was contacted by the delivery service to organise an appointement to deliver something they ordered. This person was furious. This person was shocked and DIDN’T know what to do, because it was up to us to do everything.
        I presume when you are raised to be “KING”, and you are surrounded by people who think you were chosen by God , you cannot press your toothpaste tube.

      • Tigerlily says:

        I’m not sure Philip knew how to parent. He had a crappy childhood with no real home. And ‘queening’ was Elizabeth priority. So Queen Mum spoiled Charles rotten & I suspect the nannies did too. How is it that Anne & Edward survived the poor parenting?

    • kgeo says:

      My sister is a major in the army. If anything happens to her while she’s deployed, she wants to be buried only with her teddy.

      • Margaret says:

        And I think that’s perfectly reasonable. I have no problem at all with people having a strong affection for a teddy or similar. I may have a particularly strong attachment to some inanimate objects myself. 😀

  4. Sid says:

    These people and their stuffed animals. Good grief.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    A lot of these stories seemed to be pulled from that documentary about royal staff. I’ve seen the clip about Charles getting irate about his cufflink. The whole bullying allegation against Meghan was down to the fact that the staff including Jason Knauf didn’t want to take orders from a black American actress all the while the white royals treat them like sh*t.

    • Christine says:

      The part of all of this that I find fascinating is there is clearly a need for former staff to speak, after QEII’s death, as if the gloves are fully coming off. I can’t look away, there is no one in a position of power in the royal family to curtail any of this, the British media doesn’t have anyone left they actually want to protect. It’s just going to get worse. I love it.

  6. Lucy says:

    But what was happening that made the teddy bear need repairs? Charles sounds like a child at bed time, does he sleep separate from his ladies?

    Of course he’s a fussy, violent man. I do believe the throwing at Diana bit.

    I wonder if Anderson is going to include the rumors about Fawcett and Charles, or if he’s sitting on that part because he got quotes from Fawcett.

    • Teagirl says:

      I am no fan of Charles, but I do understand the teddy bear repairs. I still have my bear which is over 70 years old. It is an old style with rough “fur” and straw like stuff inside. It has needed repairs because I would always pick it up by the belly and it developed two bald patches on either side. Also, for unknown reasons the paws wore out and you could see the straw inside. Obviously, Teddy was up to something during the night! Repairing old teddy bears, which are really antiques, is a tricky business and I wouldn’t trust it to just anybody. I sent my teddy off to a teddy bear doctor in Pennsylvania, who made the most wonderful repairs and sent my bear back with a tiny little buddy for company!

      The other thing I understand is an attachment to some thing like a teddy bear. Lonely insecure children, ignored or treated badly by parents or caregivers, often feel the teddy bear (or blankie toy) is their best friend, and they confide in the toy as though it were a person. Teddy or favourite toy does not hate, condemn, insult, or belittle a child.

      I would like to point out that I deal with my own toothpaste!

      • Eurydice says:

        I still have my first teddy. The poor thing was so bedraggled that my mother kept trying to throw it away, but my brother and I would conduct reconnaissance missions to rescue it from the trash, so she finally gave up. It has no fur left, but sports a stylish little crocheted jacket.

      • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

        I have a teddy bought by my grandma the day I was born. He’s about to turn 51. Love him dearly and will keep him forever, but I certainly wouldn’t scream at anybody for not putting him on the pillow correctly, or whatever weird power-abuses Chuck may or may not be getting up to.

      • Princessk says:

        My teddy lost an ear and someone was able to slice the existing one in two and make new ears.

    • Sean says:


      I was going to speculate about the bear myself. What in the blue hell was a forty-something year old man doing to a stuffed animal that it required constant mending?

      Also, the details about the tantrums, needing his toothpaste squeezed, PJs laid out and his shoes tied makes me think of a mixture of the opening of Coming To America (where the royal family has everything done for them and to them) and the “Bitty” skit Little Britain did years ago (YouTube it).

    • Sunday says:

      Yup, that was my biggest question, too. Even if you’re terribly attached to your teddy, after a certain age wouldn’t it sit safely tucked on a shelf or, befitting a palace, in a display case behind glass? Where was it/what was it subjected to that it needed constant repairs? Or is it made out of some exotic endangered material that doesn’t hold up well?

      • Feeshalori says:

        That state of disrepair sounds like he still handles it frequently and perhaps even packs it along on his trips. It seems that maybe Charles still can’t go anywhere without his comfort teddy which is why it always needs to be patched up. And that sink business is really wild, l still can’t wrap my head around Charles ripping out a sink with his princely super powers, smashing it to smithereens and proceeding to throttle his valet. He really is a basket case for sure.

      • Feeshalori says:

        And to add, that teddy sounds like an emotional support animal, stuffed but serving the same purpose.

  7. Brassy Rebel says:

    What is it with the Windsor men and their teddy bear fixations (I’m tempted to say fetishes but resisted)? Andrew has the same weird attachment, only he has a whole bed full, not just one from childhood.

    If just half of what is being reported in this book is true, I’m beginning to understand Charles’ freakout over Harry’s book. I suspect he’s just saying he’s worried about how Camilla will be portrayed. He’s worried about himself. The allegation of violence against Diana is very alarming but probably shouldn’t surprise anyone.

    And he needs help putting on his trousers? The King of England is like a small child.

    • Alexandria says:

      There’re really no adults amongst the Flab Four except maybe Camilla. Kate has stunted development and W is just throwing tantrums and clutching his fists.

      • Tessa says:

        I do not see Camilla as the adult around them after the way she behaved to Meghan and Diana

      • Alexandria says:

        That’s why I said maybe 😀

      • lanne says:

        Camilla got fired from her one job as a secretary because she went out partying and came late to work every day. She’s no grown woman. She’s an idle aristocrat who’s never had to take responsibility for anything in her life.

    • SueBarbri33 says:

      Yep, exactly. I’ve always sort of assumed Charles was an odd-ball, but the palace was able to make it seem more like he was “extravagant” than anything else. But I think Charles is terrified because he knows that almost anything Harry says–any detail Harry gives about him–is going to make him seem unacceptably strange to the greater public. His obsession with Camilla, his treatment of Diana, his selfishness…those are all sort of the normal tropes of the over-privileged man by this late date. Unfortunate, but expected. But if Harry pulls back the layers and it’s nothing but teddy-bears and Michael Fawcett and staffers helping him put on pants, then I’m not sure he can recover from that.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        “Eccentric Charles” is edging dangerously close to “Mad Charles”. That’s not survivable with the monarchy already precarious.

        But I don’t think it will be Harry who does this.

      • Eurydice says:

        Short of revealing that Charles murdered multiple mistresses and mixed them with the compost at Highgrove, I don’t think there’s anything Harry can say in his book that’s more strange than what’s already been said in in books, the press, interviews, films, documentaries, etc.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        Apparently, Charles thinks there is more that Harry can reveal that’s even more damaging. It’s the violence against Diana that has him shook I think. Again, I don’t think Harry will go there, at least not explicitly.

      • Princessk says:

        I don’t think Harry’s book is going to be full of surprises or revelations.

    • Puppy1 says:

      I don’t think we should be surprised with KC’s tantrums, anger issues or violence. We have witnessed “The Battle of the Pens” ourselves!

  8. Becks1 says:

    What is it with these royals and their stuffed animals??

    and he sounds like a real winner. spoiled, entitled mean and violent. That’s the new british king!

    did we ever get these kinds of stories about QEII? Was it just that the sycophancy was so strong (so no one would dare to tell these kinds of stories about her) or was she just not prone to tearing sinks from walls in search of a lost earring?

    • Cessily says:

      The stuffed animal issue is weird.. I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist I wonder if there is an underlying psychological reason for this other than they are just extremely creepy, selfish, childish, narcissistic and perverted people who have always been catered to.

      • The Royals are Ghouls! says:

        In the mental health field, “The Teddy Bear Sign” is usually short-hand for someone with a severe personality disorder and poor coping skills.

      • Cessily says:

        @theroyalsareghouls thank you that is interesting and makes sense.

      • Eurydice says:

        A stuffed animal is an object and objects contain memories. So, I don’t think it’s particularly weird if someone wants to preserve a beloved object. It’s problematic if someone goes into a rage because the staff hasn’t arranged the stuffed animals just so, or if there needs to be a designated “teddy bear wrangler,” just as it’s problematic to expect others to tie your shoes and arrange your pens just so.

        The mental health issue is that these people have been brought up to be completely unsuited for normal human life.

    • Jan90067 says:

      They are developmentally stuck in the toddler phase where everything is egocentric. NO ONE’S needs/wants supersede their own.

    • Sunday says:

      The childhood abandonment takes are probably right on the money, but these people are such a horror show that if you told me what they refer to as teddy bears were actually miniature taxidermy animals (or worse) I’d probably believe you. “he was every so attached to his teddy, once the smell of formaldehyde wore off.”

    • Christine says:

      I’m with your thought process, Becks. I am certain Betty had her quirks, we ALL have them, but the British media adored the “princess thrust into being queen at a young age” narrative, and they obviously protected her.

      No such luck for the heirs.

  9. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    Fascinating that not one actual example of Meghan’s alleged bullying of staff has been released but here are several actual instances of Charles not only bullying staff but actually being physically abusive.

  10. equality says:

    And yet there will be no investigation and no change in HR policy and the royal “experts” won’t be yelling and calling Charles a bully.

  11. Snuffles says:

    Look, I still have my beloved Snoopy doll from my childhood, but it’s boxed up somewhere in my house. I haven’t snuggled up with it since I left my single digit years.

    These teddy bears are clearly parental substitutes because of a childhood full of neglect in service to The Crown.

    And reading about Charles daily life explains how he grew into an entitled psychopath.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah this is the thing with the stuffed animals. keeping something from your childhood that you loved? That seems normal. I used to drag around this old pillowcase with me everywhere (like a blanket lol) and I only stopped bc my brother hid it from me. Years later my mom found where he hid it and she gave it to me for christmas in a frame (it was only a scrap at that point). I still have that frame somewhere, lol. It’s a memento from my childhood but it does not provide the same comfort/security that it did for me 35 years ago.

      I dunno. I do know people who have stuffed animals from their childhood in their bedroom or whatever, but I think that’s the difference – its a memento, its not like if the animal disappears they can’t sleep or whatever. there seems to be a line somewhere that charles and andrew long crossed with those things.

      • Jan90067 says:

        Pedo *was* coddled and favorited, he was put on a pedestal by Mummy Dearest. HE was not ignored. Yet he has a fetish about ALL of his teddies, one so intense that he has screaming fits if they are not placed on the bed in the EXACT ORDER he desires (to the extent he printed out a sheet for the maids!).

        Wonder if Anne had one of those plastic horses as a kid (my friends and I went through a “horse mad” phase about 7, 8, yrs old) where we had the plastic horses of every kind, and even threw outdoor lounge chair pads over sawhorses to pretend we were riding horses lol. But all that stopped around 10 yrs old.

        Wonder what is Eddie’s crutch?? He seems to have been the invisible/forgotten kid. Even to this day, who thinks of him?

      • Lady D says:

        You make me wonder what the writers of MASH were thinking when they decided Radar needed a teddy bear. Did one of the writers have a teddy of their own, were they making fun of someone they knew who had one, or was it to reassure someone they knew personally? Maybe they heard about Charles?

      • Cessily says:

        I have no issues with stuffed animals, I actually had my stepfather’s favorite shirt made into teddy bears for my mother and his grandchildren, they are/were kept in their bedrooms in a chair or on a shelf. I saved my childrens favorites, and they got rid of them when the time was right for them. (Both when they were teens after years of sitting on a shelf in their closets). I feel what KC did and what PA did is much different than that.

  12. Miranda says:

    I’m exceedingly curious as to how much these men and women who work for the BRF are paid, that this is apparently a career choice. Not just a job you take to make ends meet, but a CAREER. I wouldn’t put up with this shit for anything less than six figures. Possibly per week.

    • Concern Fae says:

      Apparently the pay is terrible. The idea is that once you have working for the RF on your resume, you can get top dollar working for ordinary billionaires.

    • Julia says:

      I don’t actually think they’re paid super well. The difference is (at least for staff close to the actual RF) the grace-and-favor apartments. You might not make a ton of cash, but you CAN end up with lifelong housing.

      That said, this is why REAL jobs have actual, contractually-bound benefits. I suspect one of the reasons the royals are such utter pills is because their closest domestic staff members are constantly striving for their personal approval. And as someone who cleaned houses in college, I can see why this is WILDLY problematic. In a normal, healthy employer-employee relationship, both parties can walk away. If your employer asks you to, say, clean their fancy heirloom as an unpaid “favor”, you can (and should!) decline. But the royals can ask anything of their employees, subject them to verbal abuse, etc., because the biggest financial prize for doing the job is 100% at the royal’s discretion. It’s a recipe for–at best–casual disrespect of your employees.

  13. Eurydice says:

    We wonder why the RF, the press and the “experts” keep infantilizing Harry? Maybe it’s a long-time expectation from watching the other Windsor men behave like infants.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      It’s that projection thing they do. Meanwhile in reality, Harry is the only one who’s managed to grow to adulthood whilst the rest of the family are operating on the level of spoiled bratty toddlers.

  14. Sue E Generis says:

    I know Charles is a monster, but I find the teddy bear thing so interesting. Two older men from the same family unnaturally, even violently fixated on them. That, along with the infantilizing behavior – tucking into bed, squeezing toothpaste, dressing them – hints at extreme childhood trauma and neglect. These men are starved for warmth and attention. And it turned them into monsters. I think what saved Harry is that his mother loved him dearly for just enough time to keep him human.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      Where is Lucy Worsley when we really need her?

      • Jaded says:

        Boy could she do an interesting reveal on Charles and Andrew, she takes no prisoners and digs deep for buried nuggets of historical *misinformation* (read lies).

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        I love her shows. But she has access to records and archives that the current bunch would never allow. As a result, we know more about the Tudors than the Windsors.

    • Miranda says:

      I remember seeing or reading something from Julian Fellowes, presumably while promoting Downton Abbey, talking about the quirks of various aristos he or his family knew personally, and one was, indeed, a man who ended up attending a shooting party without his valet, and the man was baffled by the lack of froth when he brushed his teeth. A middle-aged man who had no idea that he needed toothpaste, because from childhood there had always been someone to put it on the brush for him. Another anecdote was about some duke or earl in the first half of the 20th century who, rather than be examined by a doctor, insisted that his valet did the, ahem, rummaging around and shout to the doctor through a closed door just exactly how the honourable hammer was hanging. These people are f–king BIZARRE.

      • Princessk says:

        A former private school teacher told me that she took a group of young pupils to an underground station and the children couldn’t understand why the train wasn’t in the station waiting for them.

    • Becks1 says:

      this is what I think is so interesting about it. It all just seems to stem from childhood neglect or trauma. The stuffed animals were their only source of comfort, so they keep them well into adulthood. For Charles, it ties into his childhood nanny who is the only one who can fix the teddy.

      • Sue E Generis says:

        I wonder if this is connected to his attachment to Camilla? Maybe she won because of all his lovers, she was the one who most treated him like his nanny did. Add that she’s quite unattractive (not saying that nannies are unattractive but her look is very nonsexual). If I’m right, it also explains his revulsion for Diana. He desperately craved a mummy who would take care of him, and there he was stuck with a child (19) who needed him. Interesting.

      • Tigerlily says:

        I can’t recall where I saw it, Pinterest maybe? Photo of Camilla alongside a photo of nanny Mabel Anderson. Very interesting.

      • lanne says:

        David, Duke of Windsor, apparently chose older women as mistresses so they would mother him. It annoyed the shit out of Wallace Simpson, and she really cruel to him, even in public. He wanted a mommy more than a wife, and she wasn’t really the mommy type. So she had affairs and flaunted them openly–they were stuck with each other, which was fitting, as they were both terrible people who deserved each other. It’s no surprise to me that Charles wants a mommy for a wife. William too. It’s funny though. There are lot of maternal women out there, women who really thrive on mothering people, and who even sublimate themselves to mother people. Why did David, Charles, and William want mommy figures, and yet choose women who aren’t really that maternal in type? Maybe their turn-on was to take women who aren’t motherly and demand they transform into mommies. A kink, maybe??

      • Tessa says:

        David aka duke of Windsor enjoyed Wallis put downs. She would make fun of him and he liked it
        That seemed to be part of her appeal to him. She flaunted her affair with bisexual James Donahue the Woolworth heir. He started getting physically violent with Wallis and David had to oust him from their home.

      • Jaded says:

        @lianne – You’re right, it was a kink, Wallis was apparently VERY kinky in the sack, and did mother Edward VIII early on in their relationship. Maybe he was into pegging like William? However once they married things gradually went off the rails. She treated him like an annoying brat, had affairs, and he still worshiped her and kept her on a pedestal until he died. When Harry speaks of generational trauma, he is correct, and thankfully he worked his way out of it. I think that may be much of the focus of his book, how he addressed his own trauma, passed down through generations, and took his life back.

      • windyriver says:

        @lanne – I’m not convinced William wants a mommy for a wife. Unlike David and Charles, he had the experience of an involved mother (other influences aside as per below). I know early on in his relationship with Kate much was written about how he (apparently) really liked being mothered by Carole M., but if true, I can see that as being a reaction to the loss of Diana, losing that one sympathetic, loving figure, and being left alone with the coldness and dysfunction of the rest of the House of Windsor. Transient, in other words, and something he grew out of as more time passed since Diana’s death. But that was being mothered by Carole. Nothing I’ve seen shows Kate to be the motherly type; I’m inclined to believe that what we’ve read about her giving as good as she gets when they have arguments, is who she really is. Certainly the snippets of her behavior we’ve seen towards Meghan (Commonwealth day, recent walkabout) shows the absolute nastiness she’s capable of. IMO he married her because she planned to be as lazy as he did; she was willing to tolerate his affairs; and, no one else he asked said yes.

        Who knows what he’s really looking for in a partner at this point in time (!). Whatever his issues are (at least some are of course due to Diana’s sudden death, as are Harry’s), he’s not damaged in quite the same way as his father, and uncle David.

      • Cairidh says:

        In Britain whilst William and Kate were dating, the articles always described how Kate mothered and looked after William. She’d pick his dirty laundry off the floor, bring him breakfast in bed, go into a restaurant first and find a seat where he could have the most privacy with his back to the public. When she had a flat in London he’d ask to go over for “the usual” = she run a bath for him, give him a meal, then he’d lie on the settee with his head on her lap whilst she stroked his hair and they watched a film. The reason he was going out with her in the first place, was that she put far more effort into looking after him than anybody else, because she was desparate to be the princess of wales.

        Williams nanny Barbara Barnes, whom he was traumatised over losing, was a brunette, and Williams girlfriends were nearly always brunettes. He’d have one night stands with blondes but relationships with brunettes who cooked for him and mothered him.

      • Princessk says:

        Well Harry has married a slightly older woman and l think he has found mother love in her too, after all he has been through. Meghan had an independent life and proved she could take care of herself. For the first time l can wholeheartedly say, thank God they got out of that family.

    • Lizzie Bathory says:

      It is really interesting & very sad. It’s not surprising that William turned out to be a rudderless rage-monster. The more I learn about the family, the more miraculous I find Harry’s rejection of their toxicity.

      • Sue E Generis says:

        Not really. Our personalities are formed quite early. They essentially took William from her (not physically but by the way they interacted with him) at birth, while Harry was left to her to do as she pleased. She was able to give Harry the love and normalcy so he developed into an exceptional human being. By the time she died, although he was young, she had already imprinted on him.

      • Dee Kay says:

        @Lizzie and @Sue I think you’ve hit the nail on the head precisely. Harry was “ignored” by the institution which left him alone with his mother — thank goodness. The Firm did not get in the way of Diana lavishing motherly attention and affection on Harry, and teaching him and nurturing him and helping to build his emotional and spiritual awareness of himself and the world. I remember the photos of Diana with her sons when they were young and it looked like both sons got the same amount of love from her — which I am sure they did — but I suppose William also got a lot of training and tutoring by the Firm, so he was parented half by Diana and half by the institution, whereas Harry was parented by his mother.

    • windyriver says:

      What likely saved Harry also was being – the spare. As the oldest, William had Diana around even longer, but as the heir, he was subject to more slavish attention from interested parties, and more pernicious influences, in addition to having bad behavior excused. His basic nature does seem different from Harry, but if positions were reversed, interesting to wonder how he might have turned out. I really am looking forward to Harry’s book…

      • Becks1 says:

        I think this point from you and what @Sue said right above is very interesting and probably pretty on the mark. What seems to have saved Harry, in the end, was being the spare, in terms of emotional attachment and independence and his relationship with his mother etc.

      • Nick G says:

        I think these comments are right on the money. When you compare these thoughtful observations with the drivel pumped out each day by the “experts” it makes me annoyed that you all aren’t the royal experts for chissakes. I know it’s all speculation but it’s informed and not for devious purposes.

    • sparrow says:

      I think it is a lack of parental affection thing, too. The queen sent the nanny to stay with young Charles when he was taken to hospital one night with an emergency appendix. She also came back from months away on an overseas tour and first of all went to stay with friends for a couple of weeks before going home to her family. Teddy bears probably mean a lot to these people.

  15. Mslove says:

    Mad King Chuck, standing on his porch, barking orders through a green megaphone. I wonder how high the turnover rate is for Chuck’s staff? Lol.

  16. Danielle says:

    All I keep seeing, when I read this article, is Disney’s Robin Hood, where Prince John whines and sucks his thumb. Charles is so Prince John.

  17. Tessa says:

    So where is the investigation of Charles bullying

  18. Anna says:

    I went through some pretty bad neglect as a child.

    I replaced my parents with my stuffed animals.

    I am almost 40, and I cant buy stuffed animal toys for my dogs because I have a physician reaction like im going to be sick when I see one torn apart. Racing heart, cold sweat, nausea, the works.

    My stuffies are safe in boxes, but even so you would never have gotten this story out of me were I in his place. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anyone knowing about that, it would have been hidden from everyone, even my valet, bc I know that’s just simply not typical behavior…regardless…he still has to act like an adult to others. This isn’t happening. If his is trauma based its not his fault but its his responsibility to deal with it in a way that keeps himself and others around him safe and respected. Sometimes I struggle more days than others but it can be done if the person is committed to heal. Im not sure how Charles could heal from anything with people bending over to kiss his ass to this degree.

    • HeatherC says:

      It’s not the teddy bear for me. It was that a grown man in his forties had to be tucked into bed by *someone else* with his teddy bear.

    • Christine says:

      So much love to you both.

      Anna, thank you for sharing your life story, that couldn’t have been easy.

    • Princessk says:

      That is an interesting story which l can understand. Thank you for sharing.

  19. C-Shell says:

    The message I’m taking from this is: be nice to your valet. I’m interested in Andersen’s quoting these people by name, especially Fawcett. Is that because he took the fall for CIII in the cash for favors scandal (mind you, he was the agent)? If I had someone providing such personal and intimate services for me, I would be the soul of kindness. The deference and privilege that these people believe they’re entitled to because of the womb they emerged from is unbelievable.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      I think a certain amount of this is payback from Fawcett for being thrown under the bus in the “cash for honors” scandal. But it’s corroborated by others so I wouldn’t dismiss it as not credible.

      • C-Shell says:

        Oh, I think it’s credible. Which pretty much ensures Fawcett has no way back into the fold, and doesn’t care.

      • Tessa says:

        I do not think Charles totally cut tied with Fawcett he probably in touch with Fawcett and gave him generous pension

  20. hangonamin says:

    ladies and gentleman, this is what happens when you grow up neglected by your mom and your dad is cold to you. you regress. sad thing is the teddy bear probably means a lot to him because that may have been a source of comfort when he was a kid. yikes. no wonder he has messed up relationships with people. how can you expect to be normal when your entire world is just so awful? this guy needs lots and lots of therapy. I think I read once he was pretty sick in boarding school, and NONE of his parents came to see him. the Queen just sent a letter. can we just say that family is just so toxic and so unhealthy? why do we care about them again? can we just strip them all (every last one of them, even adjacent) of their titles and let this dynasty just whither away? Feel like I want my kids to learn they are worthy because of who they are and what they do…and not worship anyone because they were “born” a certain way.

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      Oh, if only.

      My understanding is that dissolving the BRF would be complicated. For example, who owns what property, the government of the Crown? Balmoral was purchased by Victoria’s consort Prince Albert, so that belongs to them. Highgrove was purchased by Charles, so that stays, too. What about the other properties? What about all the treasures they surround themselves with? Should they be provided with security because of their symbolic value?

      They are so entrenched it will be hard to yank the rug out from under them although it could be done by the will of the people…but…it’s not there. Cromwell, et al, gave the idea of a British republic a bad rep. The British people have accepted a Constitutional Monarchy as their form of government.

      That said, they could have their powers and their allowance taken away. I’m not clear about their powers-please step in, British scholars-but they have them and use them. And yes, the British subjects (insulting unto itself) should no longer foot the bill for any of them.

      • Becks1 says:

        Highgrove was purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall as I understand it, so it doesn’t belong to Charles, but Balmoral does and Sandringham does as well.

      • North of Boston says:

        They could do it like properties are sometimes handled when they exist someplace that becomes a national park or preserve:

        The place that is being used by a person or family as theirs is theirs to use for the time being, but an end date is established – ie upon the death of a certain person or 30 years from not, the property becomes a part of that public holding. Or it’s converted to a land lease for x # of years

        If a true personal purchase was made, with clear documentation, there may be some payment made. but in this case since the source of any royal funds buying stuff in the current stable of players, much of the wealth they may have used to buy stuff came from their pay from the public or properties wrested from the public at some point, so you could make a case for no payment- their lifestyles are supported by the nation right now, there needs to be an end date

  21. Steph says:

    This is one of the creeper pieces to ever appear on this website.

    No wonder that thought Meghan was nuts. Many Americans with mobility issue would rather struggle for an hour to get their pants on instead of accept assistance. He expects it just cuz. And having someone else hand wash his underwear. Ick.

  22. Stacey Dresden says:

    Sorry but I think this teddy bear thing is extremely weird

    • Jaded says:

      It is weird, but also extremely pathetic. Charles, Andrew, and to a lesser extent Anne and Edward are all pretty messed up. We don’t hear much about Anne and Edward because they’re way down the line of succession, and Anne seems to be the only one who came out of her childhood relatively unscathed. Experiments with young monkeys taken away from their mothers and given wire replicas with formula bottles attached proved that not having loving, warm motherly contact is emotionally damaging. The ones given wire replicas basically grew up to be violent, neurotic and unsociable. I think this is exactly what you’re seeing with members of the royal family, both present and past.

    • Princessk says:

      It is not weird it is common. I love my decades old teddy to bits, l have had him since l was six months old.

  23. AnneL says:

    British Toffs are , on average, big babies and the Royals the biggest babies at all. Particularly the men. This is what unnatural separation (one might even say estrangement) of parents and children plus having a personal dressers/attendants your whole life will do to you.

    Learning to dress oneself is considered a childhood rite of passage for most people, a key stage in developing toward adulthood and independence. Imagine if you were never expected to reach that stage? I’m not talking about having someone to help choose your clothes, or to clean your house for you. Those are privileges but they don’t preclude independence. But personal dressing and grooming are such essential and intimate activities, anyone without a disability to hinder them should be able to do them from school age.

    This reminds me of a book we had when I was a kid: “Lazy Tommy Pumpkinhead.” I think it’s message was the danger of mechanization, because little machines and robots did everything for Tommy. But this is basically the same thing. Just replace the robots with other human beings.

  24. Elsa says:

    These people are so odd. I can’t relate them at all. Thank goodness Meghan is out of there.

  25. serena says:

    Wtf is it with royals and teddy bears? I’m just appalled.

    Also, hand-washing the prince’s underwear.. ewww, please.

  26. Pam says:

    I think we’re seeing why Harry felt the need to take his wife and child OUT OF THERE.

  27. February Pisces says:

    Of course this grow ass man child still walks around with his teddy bear! Why am I not surprised at all….

  28. GuestWho says:

    I didn’t even get past this line:

    “Anytime the toy needed mending, the royal’s former nanny Mabel Anderson was brought out of retirement to make the necessary repairs. ”

    WHAT is a grown man doing to his teddy bear that would require repairs? I have a teddy bear from my long, long gone youth, and it basically sits on a shelf gathering dust and it’s condition hasn’t changed in 40+ years. I am baffled. And sort of creeped out. Is he still cuddling it? What is happening!!!??

    ETA – as I read through the comments, it is apparent that we are all a little freaked out about the teddy bear situation. Weird family.

  29. Gabby says:

    Jesus H. Christ. While Chuckes and his allies moan and brief against Harry and Netflix, this book flies in under the radar swinging an axe of truths about TANTRUMS, TEDDY BEARS, and TOILET SEATS.

    This makes him look worse than The Crown, Harry’s memoir and THAT phone call combined. It paints a picture of someone who simply cannot handle life and cannot control his own self. Bringing a toilet seat everywhere you go? Ripping out the sink of a host who invited you into their home?

    I think this points rather directly as to the fate of the palace bullying investigation. We found Patient Zero.

    • B says:

      It would be inconceivable to imagine Barack Obama tantruming about his widdle teddy bear.

      Sigh. That man knew how to get a fine suit and then he knew how to wear it well.

      Charles is a far cry from that guy.

  30. Jay says:

    See, these are the kind of details missing from the bullying investigation! I swear, every year Charles looks more like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit.

  31. Chantal says:

    Not surprising that C-Rex is a bully. Its interesting that they were trying to imply that Diana was violent when here are extreme examples applying to Chuck. Hope he didn’t physically abuse her as well.

    There should be all kinds of articles slamming Chuck for terrorizing employees. Its unconscionable that a valet was so fearful after being choked that he had to hide. Why weren’t charges filed and C-Rex arrested? Yeah I know…
    No wonder the royals have to engage in the invisible contract. But cracks are starting to appear and what other things will the RR reveal? Still, I’m finding it hard to have any sympathy for him, regardless of childhood neglect.

  32. QuiteContrary says:

    A valet was “in charge of hand-washing the prince’s underwear and tucking him into bed with his beloved teddy.” LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    God Save the Toddler King.

  33. Annalise says:

    Do you think his valet holds his weiner for him when he pees? 🤮🤮🤮

  34. jferber says:

    Annalise, that is an excellent question. What psychopathic oddballs these people are. Inbreeding for CENTURIES.

    • Annalise says:

      @JFERBER- I know right? I personally would LOVE to see the Hapsburg jaw make a reappearance! Ah, the novelties of inbreeding………. seems fitting that Charles looks like a banjo player straight out of Appalachia…. (cue ‘dueling banjos’………)

  35. Likeyoucare says:

    Is this the way the journalists/ writers way to one up ‘Spare’ books sales?
    Lets air out all the BRF tales to the world so that spare will be irrelevent?
    This is Oprah 2.0 once again.
    The monkeys hollering trying to throw some shit for attention but got them splattered on their face instead.

    • Annalise says:

      @LIKEYOUCARE- I bet you’re right! C3 probably IS trying to stay ahead of the nasty reveals….. and if that is the case I cannot wait to hear about what a sociopathic monster the bride of Chucky is……. and to think that what we know about Camilla is ALREADY pretty terrible……….

  36. sammi says:

    There is a co-ordinated attack on Charles to promote William to the Throne next.

    Charles and Camilla are not popular and not as easily manipulated as Willyleaks.

    Better to have Charlie as that will hasten the end of this privileged institution and save us all from the Middletons for a while longer!

  37. Well Wisher says:

    I can hear the silence about this particular book, which has more devastating details than Netflix’s ‘The Crown’.
    Yet the performative level of outrage is …..
    Are they taking notes to go after the King?
    Maybe the pie is large enough with a ‘public’ narrative for biographical books, just not memoirs??
    Just the usual hypocrisy??

  38. Cathy says:

    This book appears to draw heavily from a book produced in the 1980s I think called The Housekeepers Diary. This woman worked at Highgrove and wrote a book after she left, not sold in the UK but sold outside of the UK. Many of the stories published so far are the same. Some of the tales are exaggerated, you can tell which ones when you read the book. I can remember a photo in one of the daily tabloids in the 1980s too which was of a single bed with a lone teddy on it. This was meant to be Charles bed. It ended up being a set up by 2 journalists and they finally admitted it, they just wanted a photo to go with the story. So is this 21st century RR using 20th century RR stories to discredit Charles? I only remember this because it was the first time I realised that journalists are quite happy manipulating events to fit their narrative. Like would you really believe a man with a bad back could rip a sink off the wall? So, what is really happening here? Is it someone getting in before Harry’s book to make some money? Or is it part of an effort to make Charles seem incapable of the role of King and therefore leading to him stepping aside for William? (Hello CarolE)

  39. SadieMae says:

    I’ve always thought Charles probably is on the autism spectrum. It would explain a lot. Not just quirky things like wanting to have his own toilet seat wherever he goes, or bringing his own chef when he travels (which would enable him to avoid tastes/textures of food he has issues with), but also the way he relates to people. I mean, the famous “Whatever love is” quote from his engagement press conference with Diana was such a deeply weird and inappropriate thing to say, and he’s always saying things like that. Not just the faux pas everybody comes out with sometimes, but things where you’re like, “WTF??” His over-the-top reactions to small frustrations/staff errors also seem a lot to me like the reactions my son (who’s not on the spectrum but has a similar neuro difference) used to get when he was younger. The slightest thing being “off” would just upset him completely.

    So, yes, it could just be that Charles has always been spoiled, but I think it’s more likely that he’s on the spectrum (or similar) and has a hard time understanding how people usually relate to each other. These days, many people growing up with autism have access to therapies that help them navigate the world better, but that wasn’t the case when Charles was a kid.