History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Neurochick]

I don't know if this should go here.  I'm watching season 1 for the first time, I tried watching 2 years ago but could not get through it.  Anyway, I have NEVER understood why the Church of England had an issue with divorce, since that's what the CoE was formed, right?  I mean Henry VIII couldn't get an annulment from the Pope from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, correct? (she was the Pope's niece I think).  Henry tried to say that since Catherine was married to his older brother, their marriage was un holy or something like that, even though it was a marriage in name only since it was supposedly unconsummated.  So Henry basically said, "fuck this, I'll start my own church and kick my wife to the curb so I can marry Anne Boleyn."  So he divorced Catherine of Aragon, right?   Even though he and Catherine of Aragon had a daughter together.

And didn't he also kind of divorce Anne of Cleves too?  I know that marriage was sort of annulled because it was never consummated but was than an annulment or a divorce?  

I'm confused.

[toolazy]

I think the point was that they were supposed to marry virgins so that there would be no question of paternity should she turn up pregnant.  It wasn't about morality - it was about succession.  At least, that's my reading of it.  

[Pallas]

10 hours ago, Neurochick said:

Anyway, I have NEVER understood why the Church of England had an issue with divorce, since that's what the CoE was formed, right?

Henry VIII had six weddings but only three marriages, ultimately -- and no divorces. His marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annulled by the Church of England that he established and headed; he would go on to annul his marriages to Anne Boleyn (for good measure), and to Anne of Cleves. Charles III will be the first British monarch to have been divorced, and the first to have married a divorced person. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Pallas
Henry = VIII; weddings = 6.

[dubbel zout]

Because Camilla's husband is still alive, she and Charles couldn't get married in a CoE ceremony; they were married in a civil service and had a "service of blessing" afterward.

[Nessie]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

Henry VIII had eight weddings but only three marriages, ultimately -- and no divorces. His marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annulled by the Church of England that he established and headed; he would go on to annul his marriages to Anne Boleyn (for good measure), and to Anne of Cleves. Charles III will be the first British monarch to have been divorced, and the first to have married a divorced person. 

Six weddings.

(Sorry, I'm sure you know that, but it's such an easy mistake to make.)

[Pallas]

Ha! Yes indeed. Six weddings and a funeral. No, four. 

[merylinkid]

17 hours ago, Neurochick said:

I don't know if this should go here.  I'm watching season 1 for the first time, I tried watching 2 years ago but could not get through it.  Anyway, I have NEVER understood why the Church of England had an issue with divorce, since that's what the CoE was formed, right?  I mean Henry VIII couldn't get an annulment from the Pope from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, correct? (she was the Pope's niece I think).  Henry tried to say that since Catherine was married to his older brother, their marriage was un holy or something like that, even though it was a marriage in name only since it was supposedly unconsummated.  So Henry basically said, "fuck this, I'll start my own church and kick my wife to the curb so I can marry Anne Boleyn."  So he divorced Catherine of Aragon, right?   Even though he and Catherine of Aragon had a daughter together.

And didn't he also kind of divorce Anne of Cleves too?  I know that marriage was sort of annulled because it was never consummated but was than an annulment or a divorce?  

I'm confused.

I've ALWAYS said this.    However, although the COE was founded expressly so Henry VIII could get a divorce, times changed.   Queen Victoria came along and got all uptight about EVERYTHING.   After all if she was with her beloved Albert until he died, then so could everyone else.   Divorce was a bad bad bad thing.

It was only recently that a divorced person could be allowed in the Royal Presence (Margaret's divorce had something to do with that I am sure since she wouldn't have been able to be around her own sister then).    Divorced people were even barred from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.   So paternity had nothing to do with the uptightness around divorce.   Just RULES.

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I've ALWAYS said this.    However, although the COE was founded expressly so Henry VIII could get a divorce, times changed.   Queen Victoria came along and got all uptight about EVERYTHING.   After all if she was with her beloved Albert until he died, then so could everyone else.   Divorce was a bad bad bad thing.

It was only recently that a divorced person could be allowed in the Royal Presence (Margaret's divorce had something to do with that I am sure since she wouldn't have been able to be around her own sister then).    Divorced people were even barred from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.   So paternity had nothing to do with the uptightness around divorce.   Just RULES.

Yes, Victoria was a piece of work. I watched a documentary last night from I think 2015 (Queen Elizabeth In Her Own Words) in which one of the THs said dismissively that Queen V was an awful old harridan. Cracked me up.

But old Vicki had good reason to be uptight. She ascended to the throne at a point where the bibulous, high-living, licentious, dissipated, and generally useless Hanoverians had tarnished the monarchy and eroded public respect for it. The obvious question - "what is it we NEED these royals for?" - that gets asked periodically, probably didn't have a good answer on that morning when the young Victoria was awakened to learn she'd copped the lot. They were going to plop that tarnished crown on her head. She and her beloved Albert, whether by calculation or common sense or some combination, set up a royal household that was devoted to study, work, and other clean-cut "family values" things, and that, along with the public's willingness to adore the romantic figure of the lovely young queen, got the monarchy back on a firm footing.

Of course, what started out as a reasonable thing, got petrified as Victoria aged and was widowed and went (IMO) a little nuts in her grief for Albert. 

[ETA: I'm sure all of the above is a gross simplification and just reflects my own opinion after reading quite a bit of history, but still, I'm not a professional historian. I've just been interested in the personality of Queen V throughout her life including her over the top reaction to Albert's death.]

Several years ago I visited Brighton, where that epically silly Hanoverian Prince Regent built the Royal Pavilion. As my final stop that day, I duly paid my admission and toured the place. After spending several hours on a walking tour of Brighton, enjoying the street life and the blend of past and present on what seemed like every corner? I thought the Pavilion was tiresome, overblown, self-indulgent, and stupidly extravagant. Nothing to admire, either aesthetically or morally. IOW, a fitting monument to the 18th Century Hanoverians. There are some lovely public gardens adjacent to it, and I suppose it helps the city's economy with tourist dollars. But, meh. Victoria didn't like it either, I'll give her that. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Jeeves

[JudyObscure]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:29 PM, Umbelina said:

(Princess Ann does the most)

I always thought it must have been a bit of a bitter pill for her to swallow, when Princess Diana, who did the least, but always made sure to call the press first, became know as "The Caring Princess." 

[dubbel zout]

Anne's public persona has always been prickly. To a certain extent I don't think she cares, and good for her. She's become one of the most-admired members of the BRF for her no-nonsense approach to her work. I think a lot of the Diana stuff was manufactured, because of course women can't get along.

[PeterPirate]

On 4/30/2019 at 8:04 AM, JudyObscure said:

I always thought it must have been a bit of a bitter pill for her to swallow, when Princess Diana, who did the least, but always made sure to call the press first, became know as "The Caring Princess." 

I think the pictures of Diana hugging people with AIDS were worth hundreds (ok, ok, dozens) of appearances where the royal member just sat or stood or gave a small speech.  I am reminded that during the Blitz, the royal family stayed in London, and after Buckingham Palace was bombed, the Queen said "Now we are able to look the East End in the eye".  

[JudyObscure]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I think the pictures of Diana hugging people with AIDS were worth hundreds (ok, ok, dozens) of appearances where the royal member just sat or stood or gave a small speech.  I am reminded that during the Blitz, the royal family stayed in London, and after Buckingham Palace was bombed, the Queen said "Now we are able to look the East End in the eye".  

Princess Ann didn't just go to charity functions and sit, she did actual work for them, and the promise of  Ann showing up at a dinner to make a speech would have brought in much more money for the charity.  One charity director was quoted as saying that she would take one Princess Ann over a dozen Diana's. It was good for the AIDS cause, the time Princess Diana hugged someone with the disease and the photographer took her picture.  That doesn't mean she spent a lot of time there or that Ann didn't do the same sort of thing, much more often, and also for other causes. It just wasn't on the cover of a magazine.  Ann  refused to purposely set up photo-ops  the way Diana did.  A  photographer once asked Ann to pose a certain way and she simply said, "I don't do that sort of thing." I think she considered Diana's posing as rather tacky.

For example, the famous "lonely" pose on a bench in front of the Taj Mahal right after the break up.  Lots of tourists had to step aside and wait while that one was arranged.  Diana would call the press and tell them when she planned to go somewhere, looking her best, and they were happy to show up and get their photo op always from the most flattering angle.  They were on her side and helpful to her from the very first.  It was ironic that after her death the press was accused of hounding her and ruining her life.

[MadyGirl1987]

9 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

They were on her side and helpful to her from the very first.  It was ironic that after her death the press was accused of hounding her and ruining her life.

Honestly, I think that her relationship with the press did lead to her death. She used and courted the press to get the public on her side, but where she gave an inch they took a mile. It became a beast that eventually consumed her. She made herself a commodity and the press couldn't get enough of it. Just look at all the trash being spread about Meghan Markle in the tabloid, like the people saying she isn't really pregnant. How much worse would that be if William and Harry, and later their wives, had a friendlier relationship with the press where they actively sought attention for themselves. I think they learned from the experience of their mother and both of them seem to have very set boundaries between the press and their families.

[JudyObscure]

7 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Honestly, I think that her relationship with the press did lead to her death.

She died because her driver was drinking and speeding.  They had no reason to be speeding away from the paparazzi.  They had cameras, not guns.  If they didn't feel like being photographed, all they needed to do was turn off the lights inside the limo.  They were said to have been laughing and encouraging the driver to speed.  No one but Diana is responsible for not wearing her seatbelt.

[Minivanessa]

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

She died because her driver was drinking and speeding.  They had no reason to be speeding away from the paparazzi.  They had cameras, not guns.  If they didn't feel like being photographed, all they needed to do was turn off the lights inside the limo.  They were said to have been laughing and encouraging the driver to speed.  No one but Diana is responsible for not wearing her seatbelt.

I'm editing this heavily because I may have made a mistake on an important point. Diana's divorce settlement apparently resulted in her not having protective services except for public events. I'm not sure if that could have different if she'd insisted on retaining that protection for her daily life. OTOH her bodyguard Ken Wharfe has said that Diana could have retained the protection post-divorce but didn't want it.
 

Tina Brown wrote a memorable account of that night - and how Diana came to be there in the first place - in her book The Diana Chronicles.

I agree that the "decoy car" and trying to flee the paps was completely unnecessary. It was a final act of bad judgment by Dodi Fayed. Unlike Dodi, Diana was used to the media circus and wouldn't have been unhinged by being followed by the paps on the drive from the Ritz to Dodi's apartment. IMO Dodi was trying to be a strong guy taking care of his girlfriend, or something.

I hadn't heard that Diana and Dodi were laughing during that final drive. I suppose it could be true, but Diana was not looking like a happy camper in the hours before she got in the car that last time. Brown relates that she and Dodi came to the Ritz earlier that evening, went up to one of the big suites, where Diana had her hair styled. Then they went down to the dining room to have dinner, but people were staring and Diana got upset and IIRC actually started crying. They left the dining room and eventually left the hotel. The video of them walking out to the car shows Diana looking anything but jolly.

IMO Diana's celebrity hotness and value as a media commodity, had begun to control her life. Brown writes about her situation in the summer of 1997; she was actually at loose ends. In the circles Diana was in, nobody is in town in the summer, especially in August. They go to the country or the villa in France, or the like.

The problem with Diana that summer, was that people balked at inviting her to their holiday homes, because they would find the obnoxious buzz-killing media circus camped their doorstep, trying to get into their houses, and dogging their every move, as long as Diana was there. Not many people have the resources to protect themselves and their families from that.

Mohammed Fayed did have those resources, and he set out early in the summer to cultivate Diana. He bought and outfitted the yacht Jonikal, invited Diana and IIRC her sons to visit the Fayeds somewhere or other, and ordered Dodi to show up and hang out with Diana. Dodi had been happily canoodling in LA with his fiance but had to obey his father. Then, later in the summer, came the fatal cruise on the yacht with Diana, minus her sons, and Dodi, minus his dad.

If Diana hadn't died in that colossally stupid crash, it would have been interesting to see how her life played out from there. I doubt she'd have taken Dodi seriously after that little summer fling. But she would have been out of reach for any guy with any kind of ordinary life, even a privileged one. And super-wealthy men, those guys with their own Gulfstreams, would have balked at taking on a woman who would plunge them into the constant glare and hubbub of that kind of celebrity.

I see parallels with Jacqueline Onassis in the late 1960's, who solved the problem by  marrying Ari Onassis. A man with his own airplanes, yachts, and island, who could give her the levels of security and privacy she needed. Diana was in a similar situation, but with a press and paparazzi corps that had mushroomed in size and venality since Jackie's day. I suspect the wily Mohammed Fayed had figured that out, and since he's got the riches to provide that stuff, pushed his son at Diana. Too bad his son was an incompetent doofus who got himself and Diana killed. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Jeeves
I may have gotten it wrong the first time.

[MadyGirl1987]

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Especially since Diana had rejected royal or government protection service for herself (she couldn't reject it for her sons who always had their protection officers with them).

I believe that Diana's rejection of royal/government protective services was an important factor that led to her being in that insane car chase, in a car driven by a drunk, that killed her. It's so tragic that she didn't live to reconsider her own security arrangements, which I'd like to think she would have done. IMO she was all worked up into a near-paranoid state of hatred for the Royal family when she rejected those services at the time of the divorce. I think that her experiences after the divorce, and after she'd calmed down, might have led her to accept the protective services she had spurned.

Wait... SHE rejected royal/government protection? I was led to understand that it was taken away after the divorce because she was no longer a member of he royal family. That would be the stupidest thing she could do! At that point she had been a public figure for almost two decades and had seen what the paparazzi and tabloids would do for her picture or a story. If she gave that up voluntarily she was being either naive, shortsighted or both.

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Wait... SHE rejected royal/government protection? I was led to understand that it was taken away after the divorce because she was no longer a member of he royal family. That would be the stupidest thing she could do! At that point she had been a public figure for almost two decades and had seen what the paparazzi and tabloids would do for her picture or a story. If she gave that up voluntarily she was being either naive, shortsighted or both.

She was given police protection for public appearances but not for her private life.

According to Ken Wharfe, her bodyguard for years, Diana could have retained the protection for her private life, but she didn't want it. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Jeeves

[Crs97]

I had always heard she rejected the extra protection.  A friend of a friend had connections with Scotland Yard, and he told my friend at the time of her decision that without the protection she’d be dead within the year.  I always think of Diana with the media like a lion tamer who is sure he has the upper hand and can make the lion bend to his will until he makes a mistake and the lion eats him.  

[JudyObscure]

I like that  analogy, but I don't think it ever came to the place where the media turned against her.  What happened that night in Paris was simply a road accident just like the ones that kill so many other ordinary  people. 

At the time of her death and until this day, with a very few exceptions, the media still adores her and is still her purring lion. Never before or since have all TV stations talked about nothing else for weeks after a person's death, all of it worshipful.  Mention of Tina Brown reminded me of how she practically lived on CNN at the time.  She, Andrew Morton  and many others made a fortune writing books about Diana. Books that were careful to show lots of glossy photos accompanied by nothing but glowing words.  Anything she ever did that might look immature, or self-centered was always blamed on others. 

She was a grown woman when she died but still never held accountable for her own actions, it was always  blamed on "those around her."  Dodi Fayed may have been just using her on his father's orders,  but it was Diana's own choice to date him, to party around Europe with a known playboy, just as it was her choice to choose sports stars and actors as lovers and to stalk a married man just because she found him attractive. 

[dubbel zout]

I think the Tina Brown book on Diana is pretty even-handed; it's not a hagiography. Brown shows a lot of empathy for both Diana and Charles. 

Diana: Her True Story, on the other hand, is totally biased toward Diana, which makes sense because she basically dictated it to Andrew Morton.

[Crs97]

Judy, I agree with your correction to my analogy; I don’t blame the press for her death either.  I think if it more along the lines that if she became annoyed by how the press was camping out to take photos of her, well she was the one who trained them that it was okay to do so.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

I like that  analogy, but I don't think it ever came to the place where the media turned against her.  What happened that night in Paris was simply a road accident just like the ones that kill so many other ordinary  people. 

 At the time of her death and until this day, with a very few exceptions, the media still adores her and is still her purring lion. Never before or since have all TV stations talked about nothing else for weeks after a person's death, all of it worshipful.  Mention of Tina Brown reminded me of how she practically lived on CNN at the time.  She, Andrew Morton  and many others made a fortune writing books about Diana. Books that were careful to show lots of glossy photos accompanied by nothing but glowing words.  Anything she ever did that might look immature, or self-centered was always blamed on others. 

 She was a grown woman when she died but still never held accountable for her own actions, it was always  blamed on "those around her."  Dodi Fayed may have been just using her on his father's orders,  but it was Diana's own choice to date him, to party around Europe with a known playboy, just as it was her choice to choose sports stars and actors as lovers and to stalk a married man just because she found him attractive. 

I've read a lot of things in the last few years that tell us that Diana was not an unalloyed joy to be around.  She was initially immature and unprepared for her new position but she was also mentally and emotionally unstable, throwing regular tantrums and basically freaking people out.  She was just clever enough that this was never made obvious while she was alive.

There's a reason that William and Harry sponsor mental health charities - they know that their mother needed help she did not get.  

My take is that she was a human - lots of good, some flaws, but basically a decent person in really difficult series of situations.  She was also a pretty good mom, from all indications.  Her sons were raised to be less snotty than their father.

What I've let go of is my sense that Charles was the bad guy.  Charles was a victim, too.  He wasn't allowed to marry the love of his life (because she wasn't a virgin, FFS) and was railroaded into marrying someone like Diana.  Maybe he should have either not cheated with Camilla or at least been more discreet about it, but he's not the first person ever to be in love with someone other than their spouse.  

What all of that trauma and heartache has resulted in, however, is younger generations being allowed to marry whomever they choose.  Thus William married a commoner (with whom he'd lived in sin!) and Harry married a biracial American divorced woman.  Will they both stay married forever? Who knows?  But they had a much better start then poor Charles and Diana.  

Edited May 4, 2019 by toolazy

[MadyGirl1987]

2 hours ago, toolazy said:

My take is that she was a human - lots of good, some flaws, but basically a decent person in really difficult series of situations.

What I've let go of is my sense that Charles was the bad guy. 

This is the portrayal I hope we get on the show. That it wasn't as one-sided as most accounts paint it. 

3 hours ago, toolazy said:

He wasn't allowed to marry the love of his life (because she wasn't a virgin, FFS) and was railroaded into marrying someone like Diana. 

See, this is the whole thing that gets me about the situation. It seems like a rare misstep from the Windsors in reading public mood and adapting to modernised public expectations. They have adapted to public expectations throughout the years. Look at how Lord Altrinchams suggestions ended up being implemented. Would anyone in the 70s have really cared if the women Charles married wasn't a virgin? I see why they wouldn't want someone known for having relationships with an army of men, and the person he married would need to be able to represent the grace and dignity expected of the royals, but it's like they thought the public would revolt if Charles' wife wasn't the living embodiment of a Disney princess.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

This is the portrayal I hope we get on the show. That it wasn't as one-sided as most accounts paint it. 

See, this is the whole thing that gets me about the situation. It seems like a rare misstep from the Windsors in reading public mood and adapting to modernised public expectations. They have adapted to public expectations throughout the years. Look at how Lord Altrinchams suggestions ended up being implemented. Would anyone in the 70s have really cared if the women Charles married wasn't a virgin? I see why they wouldn't want someone known for having relationships with an army of men, and the person he married would need to be able to represent the grace and dignity expected of the royals, but it's like they thought the public would revolt if Charles' wife wasn't the living embodiment of a Disney princess.

It really was. It was so completely stupid. He had to marry a virgin. Why? Why did only that matter? I really doubt anyone would have cared or revolted if he married a woman who wasn't a virgin. Why was that the most important thing? More important then education, maturity, compatibility, and everything else. That knocked out most women. Many who were mature adults who probably could handle marrying the Prince of Wales or at least would have better idea and understand of what it meant. Leaving only someone young. Which is another stupid mistake. Expecting a young woman to be able to completely understand how much her life would change when she married Charles and able to handle it. That's a lot to expect from a eighteen or nineteen year old. I don't care how mature she is no woman that young would have been able to do that unless she was a princess of another country. You really would think that someone, a lot of people would have realized that. Pointed that out.

Charles and Diana only dated 12 times.  After 12 times and Charles's daddy telling him he needed to propose or break up with her because for some reason Philip though it was 1880s and her reputation would be damaged by going on 12 dates with Prince Charles. Charles for some reason went with proposing. Why? He wasn't in love with her. He barely knew her. Had they dated a little longer both would have realized how different they were. They were so completely different, had different needs, wants and etc. Diana seemed somewhat swept up in it. Why? They only went on 12 dates.  Youth, inexperience? She didn't seem to have anyone around her trying to point out it was a bad idea? The more you look at their dating, and relationship then. Its so obvious the relationship was doomed to fail. It was completely set up to fail.     

They easily could have found a woman, many women in their late 20s and early 30s who would have worked out so much better. She might even been educated. Had similar interests or was happy to go along with an arranged marriage. 

[dubbel zout]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Diana seemed somewhat swept up in it. Why? They only went on 12 dates.  Youth, inexperience? She didn't seem to have anyone around her trying to point out it was a bad idea?

It's pretty heady to be dating the heir to the British throne. I don't blame Diana for being swept up in it. 

Diana was having second thoughts about the wedding, but as her sisters only half-jokingly told her, it was too late because her "face was already on the tea towels." The entire thing was totally botched by everyone. Charles was gutless, Philip was an impatient asshole, and DIana was a naive, sheltered girl.

I'm a year younger than Diana, and I remember the hysteria that surrounded the discovery they were dating. My friends and I were all grossed out about the virgin thing, and none of us thought she'd be "ruined" if Charles decided not to marry her. That's one good thing she helped change. A woman's sexual past is no one's business but her own.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

It's pretty heady to be dating the heir to the British throne. I don't blame Diana for being swept up in it. 

Diana was having second thoughts about the wedding, but as her sisters only half-jokingly told her, it was too late because her "face was already on the tea towels." The entire thing was totally botched by everyone. Charles was gutless, Philip was an impatient asshole, and DIana was a naive, sheltered girl.

I'm a year younger than Diana, and I remember the hysteria that surrounded the discovery they were dating. My friends and I were all grossed out about the virgin thing, and none of us thought she'd be "ruined" if Charles decided not to marry her. That's one good thing she helped change. A woman's sexual past is no one's business but her own.

That really is the one good thing. Their disaster marriage made everyone rethink marriage for royals especially heirs. It paved the way for William and Harry to each chose who they wanted. They learned from their parents' mistake. They dated around, had a few relationship but they ended, they dated their future wives long enough to really get to know each other, Kate and Meghan had time to adjust to the press and give them a bigger idea of what they were getting into. Even if the marriages fail later, they gave it the best shot. 

[Minivanessa]

It's possible that Diana had set her sights on Charles well before they ever dated. I've read that she had a picture of him on the wall in her bedroom at boarding school. We know that her reading material was Barbara Cartland romances, so heaven knows what fantasies about Charles had swirled in her head throughout her adolescence.

Remember, Diana grew up in a family that moved in Royal circles. Her maternal grandmother was a lady in waiting to and pal of the Queen Mother. I think her father served the court in some capacity back in history.  IIRC her family home was on the grounds of Sandringham - until her grandfather died, her father inherited the title, and they moved into Althorp. She was about the same age as Prince Andrew. [EDITED to remove mistaken comment about her godparents.] Tina Brown describes a scene where Charles, who would have been about 18, walked in on a game of hide and seek involving the 5 and 6 year old Diana and Andrew (and I think the Queen), in one of the rooms in Sandringham. Diana's family, the Spencers, have a longer history in England than the Hanoverians (now known as the House of Windsors). One of her older sisters had dated Charles but that ended after she goofed and talked to a reporter about it. 

I think that all those connections may have blinded the Royal family to who Diana really was at age 19. She was kind of familiar and I wonder if they sort of assumed, well she's One of Us, or close to it, and so she can easily adjust to being officially One of Us. 

But Diana hadn't grown up with her mother in the house. The Spencers' home life was fractured after her parents' divorce. When her dad remarried, it was to a woman his kids loathed. Diana was warm-hearted and empathetic by nature, but also emotionally needy, staggeringly under-educated, impulsive, and well, only 19 years old. I don't think the Royals had a clue how dysfunctional the Spencer home was as Diana grew up. 

Yep, everybody botched it. 

BTW, there's a six-part docuseries on Netflix right now, The Royal House of Windsor, that I liked. It draws some parallels between Philip, who entered the family as an outsider, and Diana, also an outsider who married in. It also has an episode, "Shadow of a King," about the family's concerns that Charles not repeat the mistakes of the last Prince of Wales (Edward) who didn't settle down with a suitable woman, abdicated in favor of an American divorcee, and thus shook the foundations of the House of Windsor. So not only did the Queen and her family have the generational gulf about the virgin thing, they had to view Charles' marriage prospects with memories of the prior Prince of Wales and how his love life nearly wrecked the monarchy. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Jeeves

[VCRTracking]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Gives Birth to a Boy Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Gives Birth to a Boy

[Pallas]

20 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Gives Birth to a Boy Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Gives Birth to a Boy

Hear ye, hear ye! 

[VCRTracking]

Hello, Archie! Meghan and Harry name son Archie Harrison

[Roseanna]

In the book about British and American propaganda in Finland during the Cold War Lännestä tuulee (The wind is blowing from the West) by Marek Fields there is the picture about "the young and handsome Duke of Edinburgh" among guests of honor at the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Helsinki in 1952. A newspaper wondered whether even greatest film stars from Hollywood would have got as warm and spontantous attention from people in Helsinki.   

Edited May 25, 2019 by Roseanna
affing few words to clarify meaning

[stitcher73]

Late to the party here.  Just binged watched seasons I and II.  does anyone know if there is a new Duke of Windsor?  Or did they let that title die due to bad connotations?

[CountryGirl]

The title became extinct after the DoW's death in 1972 and there are no plans to resurrect it for anyone (although there was speculation about Harry). Given the history associated with, I totally understand it remaining extinct.

[dubbel zout]

The BRF is pretty superstitious/sensitive about that sort of thing, it seems. The dukedoms of Cumberland and Teviot, Clarence, and Connaught are suspended (i.e., have no holder) because of various bad juju over the years.

[swanpride]

Regarding the virgin discussion...yeah, I actually do think a lot of people still would have cared back then. Because it was the royals. The royals are supposed to be better than anyone else. Though the issue with Camilla was less that she wasn't a virgin and way more that she was a divorcee. Must have been like a deja-vu. 

Around 10 years later, a lot would have been different. Well, the divorcee thing not, but the virgin thing.  

But I think that they picked Diana not despite her being so young but exactly because she was so young. Young enough to be formed into whatever they wanted her to be. In the beginning she was most likely easy to please, living in some sort of fairy tale dream. She couldn't know that she was fated to be part of an re-enactment of Sissi.

[Dejana]

On 6/14/2019 at 5:44 PM, swanpride said:

Regarding the virgin discussion...yeah, I actually do think a lot of people still would have cared back then. Because it was the royals. The royals are supposed to be better than anyone else. Though the issue with Camilla was less that she wasn't a virgin and way more that she was a divorcee. Must have been like a deja-vu. 

Around 10 years later, a lot would have been different. Well, the divorcee thing not, but the virgin thing.  

But I think that they picked Diana not despite her being so young but exactly because she was so young. Young enough to be formed into whatever they wanted her to be. In the beginning she was most likely easy to please, living in some sort of fairy tale dream. She couldn't know that she was fated to be part of an re-enactment of Sissi.

Charles was starting to be viewed as a little old to be unmarried, and a proposal had been rejected by at least one previous girlfriend:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-proposed-same-woman-14085693

Back then, most "suitable" women Charles's age would have been married by their mid-20s, so if he wasn't going to marry before 30, his wife was always going to be younger than him. I don't know what the average marriage age was for British women in 1981; it was probably above 20 but not that far off from it, compared to today. Most likely, though, those brides in their early twenties didn't have a 32 year old public figure for a groom. 

*

By 2005, the Church of England was allowing divorcees to remarry in the church, though not in cases where adultery with the new partner led to the "direct breakdown" of the prior marriage, and Charles/Camilla were rather infamous to slip under the radar:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42141868

*

Back in the 1970s, Camilla never considered a marriage to Charles a possibility and really wanted Andrew Parker Bowles, besides.  There was a tacitly authorized biography a couple of years ago (Camilla's family and friends cooperated with the author) that detailed her early days with both men:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4634144/Camilla-s-story-revealed-explosive-new-book.html

[Scarlett45]

I really enjoyed this podcast, I thought you might as well. The series is brand new.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/noble-blood/id1468332063?i=1000447314797

[Minivanessa]

On 9/13/2019 at 10:57 PM, Zella said:

I'm not predisposed to being very sympathetic to Margaret, either, but I think a 2-year-separation mutually agreed on for logistical reasons by both parties (that presumably still involved seeing each other when time/circumstances allowed) is very different from a 2-year-exile imposed upon you by disapproving outside forces and is, thus, not at all comparable.  

^^From the Gelignite episode discussion. 

Good point. Especially when you're young, indulged, maybe not the most stable pancake in the stack, and your father's death has not only left you grieving but has literally rocked your whole family into a new reality. You're no longer second in line to the throne, but third behind a couple of toddlers, your sister's the new boss, and you've gotta get out there and cut ribbons and open supermarkets and be on public display at incredibly boring insignificant events out in the boondocks. 

A few months ago PBS ran a two-part documentary about Princess Margaret which I thought was definitely above average. PBS calls it Margaret: The Rebel Princess. I think it's the BBC two-parter titled Princess Margaret: The Rebel Royal.

There was a lot of screen time with three of Margaret's friends, at least two of whom were also her ladies-in-waiting. I hadn't seen them before. I thought they helped fill out the portrait of the Princess. 

If you've seen the program, or will watch it, here's a tidbit about Anne, Lady Glenconner, (formerly known as Lady Anne Coke) who appears quite a bit. She was a lifelong friend of Margaret's, from childhood. I recently re-read Tina Brown's book about Princess Diana, The Diana Chronicles. In sketching the story of Diana's family, Brown looks at how Diana's parents got together, in the early 1950's when Johnnie Spencer, Viscount Althorp, was about the most eligible bachelor going in those aristocratic circles:

Quote

. . . his charms were further polished by Eton, Sandhurst, his World War II service in Europe in the Royal Scots Greys, plus his three years as an aide-de-camp to the Governor of South Australia. Better yet, he served as an equerry (personal attendant) to King George VI and for two years to the young Queen Elizabeth. "He was very good looking then," testifies a friend of Frances. . . . Johnnie may have played the field, but in the marriage market, he was spoken for. He was unofficially engaged to Lady Anne Coke, the nineteen-year-old slim, blond, and witty daughter of the Earl of Leicester, a Norfolk neighbor at the palatial Holkham Hall . . . A formal announcement was expected at any minute. 

But, Ruth Fermoy, long-time close friend and lady in waiting to the Queen Mother, didn't let that stand in the way of her ambitions for her lovely daughter Frances. Ruth had chops when it came to skillful social maneuvering. She put the luscious fifteen year old Frances into Johnnie's path, and before Anne knew it she was dumped. 

Quote

"I was devastated when Johnnie dropped me," she admitted. "I was sent off on the QE to America ostensibly to sell Hoklham pottery, but really to get over it. I sometimes wonder if I wasn't rich enough."

She married Lord Glenconner. I'm looking forward to her memoirs, due to be published soon. 

I know the British aristocratic/royal circles aren't huge, but still it's interesting to see the history of some of those connections. Johnnie married Frances instead of Anne, and the third daughter born to their marriage married Prince Charles and gave birth to the next two heirs to the throne. . . 

Anyway, I liked what I saw of Lady Anne in that documentary and dang right I'm going to read her book.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Jeeves

[andromeda331]

Starting on Monday, on the Smithsonian channel is a series called Private Lives of the Windsors. The first episode is Rebellion, and the second one a week later is called Family First.

[phoenics]

On 1/22/2019 at 12:07 PM, SailorGirl said:

I wasn't sure where to put THIS one. . . its not factual history, but its not small talk as it does relate to the show . . .  :-D 

Does anyone have thoughts as to how to identify the fabric pattern from the sitting room furniture in Clarence House? Every time I watch the Crown I focus more on that than anything and am conveniently looking to reupholster my current sofa! 

 

This may be way late for your needs, but it's Colefax and Fowler Chintz Fabric in "Alicia".

https://designs.cowtan.com/Design/F2003-01

You'll have to find it for sale at Decorator's Best (or similar) or get an interior designer to help you source it directly as I think it's typically to the trade only or if you find it at a reseller.

Edited October 22, 2019 by phoenics

[SailorGirl]

35 minutes ago, phoenics said:

This may be way late for your needs, but it's Colefax and Fowler Chintz Fabric in "Alicia".

https://designs.cowtan.com/Design/F2003-01

You'll have to find it for sale at Decorator's Best (or similar) or get an interior designer to help you source it directly as I think it's typically to the trade only or if you find it at a reseller.

This is so awesome . . . thank you so much!!! I definitely am still looking for it!! 

You are the best!!! 

[Umbelina]

I happened across this, about the Coronation.  It's quite a bit different than the show's version, but equally fascinating.  I was most surprised that the Queen Mother simply would not move out, causing quite a bit of extra tension for Philip, because she definitely sided with "the mustaches" about Philip.  The televised coronation was also more than a slightly different version of events.

[toolazy]

On 10/22/2019 at 10:34 AM, Umbelina said:

I happened across this, about the Coronation.  It's quite a bit different than the show's version, but equally fascinating.  I was most surprised that the Queen Mother simply would not move out, causing quite a bit of extra tension for Philip, because she definitely sided with "the mustaches" about Philip.  The televised coronation was also more than a slightly different version of events.

Nifty, thanks!

[Minivanessa]

On 10/22/2019 at 11:34 AM, Umbelina said:

I happened across this, about the Coronation.  It's quite a bit different than the show's version, but equally fascinating.  I was most surprised that the Queen Mother simply would not move out, causing quite a bit of extra tension for Philip, because she definitely sided with "the mustaches" about Philip.  The televised coronation was also more than a slightly different version of events.

Thanks for the link. I watched this once on Amazon Prime video, at bedtime when I was tired and fell asleep in the middle. Then when I went to look for it again I couldn't find it; I just looked again and it turns up in a search as "unavailable." This time I watched it via your link, and stayed awake. 😊  Agreed, it's well done.

There's a documentary about Philip that I also liked - Prince Philip: the Plot to Make a King. Despite the sensational title, it seems solid on the facts. I learned a lot about Philip's background, and also about his uncle Lord Mountbatten (who also played a big part as a substitute grandfather and mentor to the young Prince Charles). As shown in that Coronation documentary, the Philip documentary discusses how he was shut out of things by "the mustaches" and Churchill. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Jeeves

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Thanks for the link. I watched this once on Amazon Prime video, at bedtime when I was tired and fell asleep in the middle. Then when I went to look for it again I couldn't find it; I just looked again and it turns up in a search as "unavailable." This time I watched it via your link, and stayed awake. 😊  Agreed, it's well done.

There's a documentary about Philip that I also liked - Prince Philip: the Plot to Make a King. Despite the sensational title, it seems solid on the facts. I learned a lot about Philip's background, and also about his uncle Lord Mountbatten (who also played a big part as a substitute grandfather and mentor to the young Prince Charles). As shown in that Coronation documentary, the Philip documentary discusses how he was shut out of things by "the mustaches" and Churchill. 

This was pretty wild about Mountbatten, and it's certainly not a favorable take on his career.  Overall, it implies he got a lot of soldiers killed, his mistakes caused his naval ship to sink, he was a massive self-promoter, and other players on the show, notably Churchill, have comments about him in this as well.  

Honestly, I was pretty shocked.  This does touch on his personal life (the multiple affairs of his and his wife's, including live in lovers) but it's not the main focus of this documentary.  His death is also included, along with some IRA members comments.

[dubbel zout]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

he was a massive self-promoter,

I don't think even Mountbatten would have denied that, heh. His ambition was limitless.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I don't think even Mountbatten would have denied that, heh. His ambition was limitless.

I don't know which is the more shocking, that he needlessly sent a bunch of Canadian soldiers to their death, or that he rushed AND had prejudice when essentially "creating" present day Pakistan and India, which resulted in massive problems for no logical or practical reason, problems that essentially never resolved, and continue to echo today.

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

This was pretty wild about Mountbatten, and it's certainly not a favorable take on his career.  Overall, it implies he got a lot of soldiers killed, his mistakes caused his naval ship to sink, he was a massive self-promoter, and other players on the show, notably Churchill, have comments about him in this as well.  

Honestly, I was pretty shocked.  This does touch on his personal life (the multiple affairs of his and his wife's, including live in lovers) but it's not the main focus of this documentary.  His death is also included, along with some IRA members comments.

13 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't know which is the more shocking, that he needlessly sent a bunch of Canadian soldiers to their death, or that he rushed AND had prejudice when essentially "creating" present day Pakistan and India, which resulted in massive problems for no logical or practical reason, problems that essentially never resolved, and continue to echo today.

I don't know either. Both are so horrible. 

[Umbelina]

This MAY have been posted before, and if so, apologies, I don't think I've seen it, but...

Anyway, the interesting thing about this one, is that obviously the writers on the show used it, since certain wording is an exact match in this documentary to words used by Lascelles when speaking to QEII.  

I also watched Edward on Edward (son of QEII on uncle of same) who insists that Edward was completely innocent, which is honestly very odd.  Anyway, this one brought me up short a bit since I heard Lascelles words but from a different voice.

(why yes, I am cleaning the house, and this is my background noise, ha)

[Minivanessa]

Yesterday a new book that I'd ordered, was delivered. Yesterday evening I read it almost literally at one sitting. I'm still digesting it, and I know I'll dip into it for re-reads. I had to order it from amazon.co.uk because it was just released in the UK last week and the US edition isn't out until next spring. 

It's Lady in Waiting: My Extraordinary Life in the Shadow of the Crown, by Anne, Lady Glenconner. She'll be portrayed by Nancy Carroll in the new season of The Crown. I posted upthread that I've seen her in a few Royal documentaries lately. She strikes me as very intelligent, well-balanced, and someone with a life-saving sense of humor.

"Extraordinary life" is apt in this case, if not an understatement. For purposes of this discussion - The Crown and the history of the monarchy - here are a few pertinent things about Lady Glenconner:

• Born in 1932 as Lady Anne Coke, eldest daughter of the Earl of Leicester, her home was Holkham Hall in Norfolk.
• Her parents were friends with the then Duke and Duchess of York. As Sandringham isn't far from Holkham, Anne as a child was friends with the York's daughters Elizabeth and Margaret (Anne was 2 years younger than Margaret). 
• At about age 19 or so, Anne fell in love with Johnnie Althorp (Spencer), who was quite the catch. He proposed, she accepted, but they hadn't announced it. I quoted upthread Tina Brown's take on the story in The Diana Chronicles: Ruth Fermoy poached Johnnie, who coldly dumped Anne, breaking her heart, in favor of Ruth's daughter Frances. In this book Anne doesn't get into those details but says she was heartbroken. She went to the US to sell the Holkham Pottery that her family had begun to produce. (Johnnie and Frances had four kids including Diana, later Princess of Wales.)
• She was called back from the US by a telegram: she was to be a Maid of Honour at the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. There's a whole chapter about that. Her mother also took part as she was one of the Queen's two Ladies of the Bedchamber.
• Anne married Colin Tennant (Baron Glenconner), a mercurial (to put it mildly) and talented man, who offered Princess Margaret land on the island of Mustique as a wedding present. Several years later Margaret built a house there which was her escape from her unhappy marriage and a place to relax and have fun.
• Anne became a Lady in Waiting to Princess Margaret in 1971, and served in that role until Margaret's death in 2002. She was also a good friend. In one or another of those roles, she was close to Margaret, and traveled extensively with her. Anne lived with Margaret at Kensington Palace for a year in 1990, because her husband had once again sold their London house abruptly and the next place wasn't ready yet (he was spending most of his time in Mustique by then). 

The book opens with Anne's hosting first Nancy Carroll and later Helena Bonham Carter to tea, as both had asked if she'd meet to talk about both her own life and Princess Margaret. I hope it's not a spoiler because it's about casting, but I'll tag this next bit just in case.

Spoiler

She said that Helena resembles Princess Margaret. She "is just the right height and figure, and although her eyes aren't blue, there is a similar glint of mischievous intelligence in her gaze." Helena brought her notebook and quizzed Anne on many things including Margaret's mannerisms. 

She's looking forward to seeing herself and Princess Margaret "reunited on screen." 

Her book has a different take on Margaret's character. Their lives diverged during WWII - the Princesses were at Windsor and Anne and her sister were with relatives in Scotland. They resumed their friendship later on. Margaret and the Queen Mother attended Anne's wedding in 1956. Where Anthony Armstrong Jones was the photographer; that's not when Margaret met him, though. She was introduced to him later. 

Anne gives a glimpse of the job that a lady in waiting performs when a Royal is out "on the job" at an event. She has a bit to say about Roddy, mostly favorable, and we see the funny and warm side of Margaret's personality. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Jeeves
info on her husband