History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Im listening to this podcast about Diana, thought you might want to check it out. 

I have started this and it is entertaining, but I question the hosts' understanding of British culture and laws.  It's good, but using the Andrew Morton book as one of your main sources makes me give them major side-eye.  

[Umbelina]

58 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I have started this and it is entertaining, but I question the hosts' understanding of British culture and laws.  It's good, but using the Andrew Morton book as one of your main sources makes me give them major side-eye.  

They rip Morton apart as it goes on.

[Ohiopirate02]

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They rip Morton apart as it goes on.

I listened to the whole thing, and while they do take Morton to task for some things he wrote, overall they are ignoring the context of the Morton book.  Maybe they will discuss it in part 3 or 4 when the story gets to the 90s and the divorce.  

[Umbelina]

29 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I listened to the whole thing, and while they do take Morton to task for some things he wrote, overall they are ignoring the context of the Morton book.  Maybe they will discuss it in part 3 or 4 when the story gets to the 90s and the divorce.  

I don't think anyone could ignore his book when doing a podcast like this, but I love how they compare and criticize his "jump" or "cleaning up" of truth.

[Ohiopirate02]

8 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't think anyone could ignore his book when doing a podcast like this, but I love how they compare and criticize his "jump" or "cleaning up" of truth.

I agree that the Morton book is important to the story of Charles and Diana.  My issue boils down to I know about how that book came about and I will pause if someone takes that particular book as the truth.  The book is the truth according to Diana when she was trying to separate from Charles.  I think it was a brilliant PR move for Diana and necessary for her in many ways.  She was a lone woman going up against the Crown and needed the public sympathy that book and her subsequent interviews garnered in order to leave Charles and still retain custody of her sons.  But, Diana was trying to portray herself as the poor little fawn who was swept up into the Royal Family and they were the bad guys.  Context matters.

[Umbelina]

12 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree that the Morton book is important to the story of Charles and Diana.  My issue boils down to I know about how that book came about and I will pause if someone takes that particular book as the truth.  The book is the truth according to Diana when she was trying to separate from Charles.  I think it was a brilliant PR move for Diana and necessary for her in many ways.  She was a lone woman going up against the Crown and needed the public sympathy that book and her subsequent interviews garnered in order to leave Charles and still retain custody of her sons.  But, Diana was trying to portray herself as the poor little fawn who was swept up into the Royal Family and they were the bad guys.  Context matters.

She was 19.  I think the "poor little fawn" isn't that far from the truth.  

She wasn't a Becky Sharp, if she was, she would have managed Charles and his affair, and the weirdo royals and had them dancing to her tune, or at least have had a clue about men.  19 and a virgin who never had a boyfriend suddenly swept into the future King of England's vision as a solution to his "must produce an heir" problem, while he's still fucking a married woman?  Not exactly a femme fatale who manipulated him.

I also do think both of their childhoods were very strange, and Diana was an empathetic person.  Her thoughts of healing him, and making him happy, and finally having the happy family of her dreams seem real to me.  Had she had a few more years, and a bit more experience with men, she might have managed being a brood mare and future Queen, while Charles played with Camilla very well.

She was a kid though, and had very little clue about love.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Umbelina
added stuff

[dleighg]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

She was a kid though, and had very little clue about love.

she was just weeks different from me in age. I remember the wedding, and where and who I was at that time.  I can't even imagine myself at that time going into what she was going into (and I'd at least had (exactly) one boyfriend at that point!)

[dubbel zout]

It's amazing the marriage lasted as long as it did, given the complete mismatch of Charles and Diana.

[Scarlett45]

Part 2 of the “Youre Wrong About” regarding Princess Diana (The Wedding) if you guys are interested. 

[PeterPirate]

On 10/8/2020 at 11:09 AM, Scarlett45 said:

Part 2 of the “Youre Wrong About” regarding Princess Diana (The Wedding) if you guys are interested. 

Well, that was painful to listen to.  By that I mean the way the entire monarchical structure treated Diana.  And given the way the show has set Charles up to be seriously emotionally stunted, I imagine we are going to see some painful episodes in the next couple of seasons.   

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by PeterPirate

[Roseanna]

On 9/28/2020 at 11:53 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree that the Morton book is important to the story of Charles and Diana.  My issue boils down to I know about how that book came about and I will pause if someone takes that particular book as the truth.  The book is the truth according to Diana when she was trying to separate from Charles.  I think it was a brilliant PR move for Diana and necessary for her in many ways.  She was a lone woman going up against the Crown and needed the public sympathy that book and her subsequent interviews garnered in order to leave Charles and still retain custody of her sons.  But, Diana was trying to portray herself as the poor little fawn who was swept up into the Royal Family and they were the bad guys.  Context matters.

 

On 9/29/2020 at 12:05 AM, Umbelina said:

She was 19.  I think the "poor little fawn" isn't that far from the truth.  

She wasn't a Becky Sharp, if she was, she would have managed Charles and his affair, and the weirdo royals and had them dancing to her tune, or at least have had a clue about men.  19 and a virgin who never had a boyfriend suddenly swept into the future King of England's vision as a solution to his "must produce an heir" problem, while he's still fucking a married woman?  Not exactly a femme fatale who manipulated him.

I also do think both of their childhoods were very strange, and Diana was an empathetic person.  Her thoughts of healing him, and making him happy, and finally having the happy family of her dreams seem real to me.  Had she had a few more years, and a bit more experience with men, she might have managed being a brood mare and future Queen, while Charles played with Camilla very well.

She was a kid though, and had very little clue about love.

It's not about Diana personally, but one must always remember some basic facts of source criticism:

- no human being can know what another person thinks or feels or aims, she can only see acts which she always interprets 

- the memories don't remain intact in the brain, but people forget most of them and interpret those they remember and those interpretations change in time

- it's always essential to ask what aims a person has to write a book, give material to it or give an interview

Although Diana was "a kid" when she married Charles, she was a woman at 30 and a mother of two, an international superstar who had had love affairs herself, when she talked (via cassettes) to Morton. Even if she wanted to revenge on Charles, how could a good mother she claimed to be not think how her revelations would affect her sons, both to learn f.ex. that the mom had tried suicide when she was pregnant with William, and to suffer from the knowledge that all the world would know their parents' private life, perhaps even their schoolmates would ridicule then for it.  

[Ellaria]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It's not about Diana personally, but one must always remember some basic facts of source criticism:

- no human being can know what another person thinks or feels or aims, she can only see acts which she always interprets 

- the memories don't remain intact in the brain, but people forget most of them and interpret those they remember and those interpretations change in time

- it's always essential to ask what aims a person has to write a book, give material to it or give an interview

Although Diana was "a kid" when she married Charles, she was a woman at 30 and a mother of two, an international superstar who had had love affairs herself, when she talked (via cassettes) to Morton. Even if she wanted to revenge on Charles, how could a good mother she claimed to be not think how her revelations would affect her sons, both to learn f.ex. that the mom had tried suicide when she was pregnant with William, and to suffer from the knowledge that all the world would know their parents' private life, perhaps even their schoolmates would ridicule then for it.  

Rather, it is always essential to try to imagine ourselves in someone else's shoes. None of us can ever understand what was going on in her head. None of us had her life experiences, both good and bad. None of us should judge. We can wonder why she did what she did. We can wonder what we might have done in similar circumstances. None of us can ever truly know.

There is a likely answer to the question of "how could a good mother do..." this or that. She simply didn't think about the consequences of her words and I, for one, do not condemn her for it. She made mistakes, and perhaps that interview was one of them. That doesn't mean that she was not a good mother. Debating her intentions as a mother does not enhance this debate. Why aren't we asking about Charles' intentions as a father as well?

The discussions of right or wrong, good or bad become repetitive in this instance. Why we can't say that there were varying degrees of fault on all sides? There was an imbalance of power in the relationship from the start. Add in lies, immaturity, self-preservation, naivete, lack of self awareness (to name a few) and their relationship was doomed. 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Umbelina]

I like these podcasts because they aren't just using one book, and the comparisons between books are interesting.

Diana seems very polarizing, and opinions change and are somewhat shaped by various movies, documentaries, news organizations, magazines, and TV shows.  I think when The Queen came out, which was very anti-Diana, and implied people who were sad at her death crazy, it became cool to defend Charles and the Monarchy, poor things that had to deal with the nutcase.  For many years before that it was the opposite, many even seriously wondering if Charles or The Crown had her killed.

My opinion hasn't changed much over the years.  I don't require perfection to admire or sympathize with someone.  For me, the bottom line basically comes down to this.  I don't think she stood a chance, and I think that is, and will remain very sad.  She was just too young to cope with all of it, especially without any help from her husband.

Also, I seriously dislike Charles, and have since I was old enough to see what he is really like.  His jealousy of Diana's popularity was sickening, but to me, just revealed what a spoiled, selfish, completely out of touch narcissist he was, and probably still is.  While I can pity his upbringing, in many ways, as an adult he did have choices, and he is responsible for those.  Mostly, I feel he took vows he never intended to keep, and while they may have scratched out a couple of happy moments together when the children came?  He thought of Diana as a rival and a brood mare.  I don't feel she was ever anything more than a means to an end for him.  That end was to produce heirs.  I don't think he intended to change a single thing in his life except that, including his affair with Camilla.

I also can't get over the way he treats his servants, those stories just make me cringe.  He can't take a few steps to get his cufflinks (or whatever) that he's decided to wear, and instead must ring for a servant to take those few steps?  Sending a servant on a couple hundred miles round trip because he preferred a different shirt at a different estate, and then changing his mind and not wearing it after all?  He's so out of touch and spoiled and resentful!  Ick!  There are so many stories about things like that, and they didn't all come from Diana.

 

(again not trying or expecting any minds to change here!)  xoxo

[Ellaria]

45 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

 While I can pity his upbringing, in many ways, as an adult he did have choices, and he is responsible for those. 

This is an interesting comment because, after reading watching tons of movies, books, podcasts, documentaries about the Royal Family, I have come to one conclusion: a life without choice is unnatural. When you cannot marry who you love, when you cannot choose your profession, you are reduced to being something less than your authentic self.

The idea of being bound by duty (an artificial, ridiculous sense of duty), as The Queen, Prince Philip, Charles are, is dreadful. I, too, pity their upbringing and their childhoods, because something was missing. Living with immense wealth and privilege because of who your ancestors were is an archaic concept. For me, the Queen and Charles are anachronisms; made to adapt to behavior that is completely out of touch with modern times. The Royal Family was tied to absurd limitations until very recently: Margaret's inability to marry Peter Townsend because he was divorced, the insistence that Charles marry a virgin. Where is the happiness in that!

And yet, NONE of that is an excuse for a lack of common courtesy or empathy, regardless of your upbringing. No one is born deceitful; that is learned behavior that is accepted over time. While I do have some sympathy for Charles, I do not admire him as a man.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I also can't get over the way he treats his servants, those stories just make me cringe.  He can't take a few steps to get his cufflinks (or whatever) that he's decided to wear, and instead must ring for a servant to take those few steps?  Sending a servant on a couple hundred miles round trip because he preferred a different shirt at a different estate, and then changing his mind and not wearing it after all?  He's so out of touch and spoiled and resentful!  Ick! 

I read somewhere that even when he's traveling, he has to have an aide put EXACTLY one inch of toothpaste on his toothbrush so that it will be ready as soon as he finishes his morning shower.  The man can't even load his own toothbrush????

Seriously, I don't know about that life.  Is this normal for rich/famous people?

[Crs97]

29 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 

I read somewhere that even when he's traveling, he has to have an aide put EXACTLY one inch of toothpaste on his toothbrush so that it will be ready as soon as he finishes his morning shower.  The man can't even load his own toothbrush????

I thought that had been debunked many times over; that when he broke his arm as a child they had to put toothpaste on his toothbrush and it somehow got conflated to always.  That’s why I take all compliments and complaints about the royal family with a huge grain of salt.

[Umbelina]

54 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I read somewhere that even when he's traveling, he has to have an aide put EXACTLY one inch of toothpaste on his toothbrush so that it will be ready as soon as he finishes his morning shower.  The man can't even load his own toothbrush????

Seriously, I don't know about that life.  Is this normal for rich/famous people?

No, it's not normal for most people, even the super wealthy.  Is it normal for other Royals around the world *those that still exist?*  Maybe, I could see it happening in Saudi Arabia perhaps.

I do believe that story, it fits with so many other tales of Charles.

2 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This is an interesting comment because, after reading watching tons of movies, books, podcasts, documentaries about the Royal Family, I have come to one conclusion: a life without choice is unnatural. When you cannot marry who you love, when you cannot choose your profession, you are reduced to being something less than your authentic self.

The idea of being bound by duty (an artificial, ridiculous sense of duty), as The Queen, Prince Philip, Charles are, is dreadful. I, too, pity their upbringing and their childhoods, because something was missing. Living with immense wealth and privilege because of who your ancestors were is an archaic concept. For me, the Queen and Charles are anachronisms; made to adapt to behavior that is completely out of touch with modern times. The Royal Family was tied to absurd limitations until very recently: Margaret's inability to marry Peter Townsend because he was divorced, the insistence that Charles marry a virgin. Where is the happiness in that!

And yet, NONE of that is an excuse for a lack of common courtesy or empathy, regardless of your upbringing. No one is born deceitful; that is learned behavior that is accepted over time. While I do have some sympathy for Charles, I do not admire him as a man.

I agree, but I also have to balance that with their immense wealth and privilege.  The Queen may have been more frugal and dutiful than other Royal Family members, and she is certainly being given that "edit" in most of The Crown.  

Would many trade their lives of poverty, or drudge jobs, and managing "middle class" bills and duties with very little reward for a life of jetting off to an island whenever the mood struck her, like Margaret?  Or a staff of hundreds or thousands to care for horses, do the dishes, prepare the meals, doctors making house calls, take care of all clothing, and cleaning in the house (s!) as well as taking care of the yards (grounds in this case) and arranging all travel for me, as well as driving me anywhere I decide to go, just on and on and on?  

Would you trade traveling around the world for three months once a decade or so, giving speeches, for going to work in a cubicle or grocery store and *maybe*  getting two weeks vacation a YEAR?  I mean, just snap your fingers and Christmas decorations are up, and beautiful, and taken down, cleaned, stored on a precise date?  

It's astonishing how much is done for them, and how wealthy they are, mind boggling really.  Unimaginable if really examined on a minute to minute basis.  

Then you get to the whole endless question, certainly not limited to the royal family, about so much wealth and privilege in so few hands, while people are dying from lack of basic shelter, food, medical care, education....

For me personally?  I'd hope I would have the grace to be grateful or to say, "this is utter bullshit" and give it all away the moment it was in my power to do so.  By "give it all away" I mean responsibly organizing that, making sure it was done the right way, and leaving myself a few million to STILL live a life of comparative luxury.

Harry is trying to step away, and I admire that, even when his unique first steps away are stumbles.  

23 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I thought that had been debunked many times over; that when he broke his arm as a child they had to put toothpaste on his toothbrush and it somehow got conflated to always.  That’s why I take all compliments and complaints about the royal family with a huge grain of salt.

I don't think it has been credibly debunked at all.  It actually fits right in with all of his other actions.  I can believe it began when he was a child though, most parents help with that, broken arm or not.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Umbelina
typo and added the driving! Ha, I would love to have a driver, and to not have to maintain cars, etc.

[Ellaria]

48 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Would many trade their lives of poverty, or drudge jobs, and managing "middle class" bills and duties with very little reward for a life of jetting off to an island whenever the mood struck her, like Margaret?  Or a staff of hundreds or thousands to care for horses, do the dishes, prepare the meals, doctors making house calls, take care of all clothing, and cleaning in the house (s!) as well as taking care of the yards (grounds in this case) and arranging all travel for me, as well as driving me anywhere I decide to go, just on and on and on... 

...Harry is trying to step away, and I admire that, even when his unique first steps away are stumbles.  

I think that you misunderstood. I was not suggesting that they should or would willing trade their privileged lives for middle class existence. I can't imagine that many would. I am also not relying on The Crown's interpretation of the Queen's frugality. Their life of privilege and wealth is based on archaic notions of behavior that they are expected to conform to. That's where my objections lie. They adhere to traditions that are harmless and silly, like walking two steps behind HRH. They are also extended some protections that are questionable (Andrew). 

This is what the monarchy is. Everyone can make up their own mind whether they love it, hate it or find it completely ridiculous.

As far as Harry, I hope that he is successful in his attempt at stepping away. I suspect that it is proving to be much more problematic than he anticipated. 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[Umbelina]

44 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I think that you misunderstood. I was not suggesting that they should or would willing trade their privileged lives for middle class existence. I can't imagine that many would. I am also not relying on The Crown's interpretation of the Queen's frugality. Their life of privilege and wealth is based on archaic notions of behavior that they are expected to conform to. That's where my objections lie. They adhere to traditions that are harmless and silly, like walking two steps behind HRH. They are also extended some protections that are questionable (Andrew). 

This is what the monarchy is. Everyone can make up their own mind whether they love it, hate it or find it completely ridiculous.

As far as Harry, I hope that he is successful in his attempt at stepping away. I suspect that it is proving to be much more problematic than he anticipated. 

 

😉  I was actually trying to say the opposite, but I'm sleepy.  What I was trying to say is that millions would trade their lives for those the royals have, put up with restrictions and making occasional appearances, for all of the incredible privilege and luxury that they get in return.  

Instead we deal with things like trying to get a fence repaired for a reasonable price.  I'd much rather have to decide which expensive, and cared for horse I want to ride today.  Oh have a thought about helping some place in Africa, and simply arrange a very luxe trip to do that.  Have others plant my organic gardens, care for them, deliver the washed, and cooked products from that to my plate, and then wash that plate and ask what dessert I would prefer.

 

 

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I think when The Queen came out, which was very anti-Diana, and implied people who were sad at her death crazy

I don't find The Queen anti-Diana. After all, it wasn't about Diana but about Prime Minister and his Queen and how differently they dealt with Diana's death and people's reaction as well as different behavior styles of different generations. 

There are some  key scenes which I now describe from memory.

One is when Mrs Blair who is more radical and republican than her husband teases him for it that he has fallen with the Queen because she is like his mother, a woman who was brought during the WW2. 

That was echoed when Elizabeth confesses to her mother that she can no more understand what her people wants from her. Before it was clear to her: she must keep calm even during the most terrible crisis - just as her parents family did during the WW2.

And finally Alistair, Blair's spin-doctor, makes fun with the Queen when she does her belated, forced tribute to Diana to which he had added emotional phrases like "as a grandmother" by saying that she doesn't mean anything she says - which is quite hypocritical because the movie had shown how the public's reaction has been cynically controlled and manipulated by papers and by Blair and Alistair for their own selfish ends. Blair gets angry at Alistair and says that the Queen has sacrificed her whole life for a matter, i.e. monarchy, that Diana almost destroyed. 

It's too simple to describe these things anti-Diana, they were characters' opinions and watchers must make their conclusions from them.

The most imaginative and brilliant scene was about Elizabeth looking at a deer whose beauty she admires - we see only her back, when she turns she has tears in her eyes. She wants to save the deer from hunters and succeeds that day, but later it is killed, she goes to look at its body and controls again fully herself. The deer is obviously a symbol for Diana and Elizabeth could show her feelings only in private. 

But there is more in that symbol: as Diana's bother said in his eulogy, Diana was a Roman goddess of the hunt and wild animals, but her sister became one was hunted by the press. However, there is something lacking in this: if the public hadn't bought the papers where the pictures of paparazzis were published, papers wouldn't have paid for those pictures and paparazzis wouldn't have taken them. 

Therefore, the public's angry reaction towards the Queen can be interpreted as an effort to deny their own guilt and by finding a scapegoat. Elizabeth who had been criticized for putting the duty before her family was now criticized for "not comforting her people" and there was no sympathy towards her decision that her family, especially her orphaned grandsons, needed privacy in such a time.

Looking back, wouldn't it have been better for those boys, especially Harry, if their mother's funeral had been private as it was originally planned? Or at least that although they would have been present, they wouldn't have been shown in TV nor pictures as was the case of the family of the Swedish prime minister Palme whose murder also created a national grief? 

     

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I don't find The Queen anti-Diana.

I listened to the commentary.  I felt it was kinda balanced until I heard the writer and director mocking those who mourned, and made other comments, which...yeah, didn't care for them.

That could have skewed my view of the film, I am honestly not sure.  I still liked it though.  

I will say they made Charles look whiny, and the Queen tone deaf and cold, and Philip like a crazy cranky old man as well, along with the anti Diana comments, so you are probably right.

[merylinkid]

Diana was a flawed person.   Charles was and IS a flawed person.   Both caught up in a bad situation.   Charles is hemmed around by "duty."   He's been taught his whole life to do his "duty."    So when he is told by his father to marry that girl or let her go, he does the "honorable" thing and marries her.   Was he also incredibly selfish that he wasn't going to let his mistress go either?   yes.   Diana wanted the fairytale princess role to make her whole life perfect because her parent's nasty divorce had scarred her horribly.   So she said yes when Charles proposed even though it was clear they had nothing solid to build a marriage on.   Then she was just thrown in the deep end and expected to be the "perfect" Princess right from the start.   Did she manipulate that image to her own ends?   Oh hell yes.  

William and Kate get a lot of grief for not being full time working Royals and doing so few engagements when the Queen is so old and Charles is not exactly a spring chicken.   But the Royal Family learned at least ONE thing from the experience with Diana, and to a lesser extent Sarah Ferguson.    Don't expect royal wives to just jump in with no support.   Let them be a family for awhile.  Let them get a solid base as a family first before they have to be "on show" all the time.   It will help in the long run.

The Royal life is not all the lawn is mowed and your travel is planned for you.   There is a LOT of work that goes into it.   Those Christmas decoratioins that go up each year right on time?   There's a theme each year and the Queen has to approve it.   The Queen reads her red box every day -- even on "vacation."   Those trips --most of them are business trips with the schedule packed with meeting people and going places chosen by others.   It's not "Hey I'd like to go to Bora Bora for 2 weeks and go snorkeling."   Yes they get more vacations than the rest of us do, but they work a  lot more nights and weekends than the rest of us do too.   Those fabulous clothes?   How many times have we on here criticized something that one of the Duchesses wore to an official engagement?   At least when you or I go out, even some place fancy, no one picks apart our clothes, our shoes, our make up, our jewelry.   No one is watching our every move and listening to our every word to criticize.   Those servants that are around to get the cufflinks, put out the clothes, etc?   Means there is NO privacy.   They knew Diana was having an affair before Charles did.   They knew Charles was still sleeping with Camilla before Diana did.    Because again, no privacy.

To sum up -- Charles and Diana - human with their good and bad points.   Being royal - pros and cons.     Like more people and life in general.
   

[AZChristian]

Just want to thank everyone for their points of view.  I love this board because background information and opinions are usually given without personal attacks on other participants.  The most recent few have been particularly articulate and informative.

[dubbel zout]

15 hours ago, Umbelina said:

What I was trying to say is that millions would trade their lives for those the royals have, put up with restrictions and making occasional appearances, for all of the incredible privilege and luxury that they get in return.  

They might trade places for a week or a month, but forever? I doubt it. Royal life is a grind. A very luxurious grind in many ways, but a grind.

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

her orphaned grandsons

William and Harry aren't orphans, as Charles is still around.

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Diana wanted the fairytale princess role to make her whole life perfect because her parent's nasty divorce had scarred her horribly. 

That.

And more: she was the fourth daughter and her sex was a disappointment to her father who longed for a son to inherit the Earl's title and lands. She wasn't good at school and got no profession. Her only ambition was to make a good marriage, if possibly better than her older sisters. So there was a feeling of superiority (as a daughter of an Earl) combined a sense of inferiority that demanded compensation and that was made possible by the British class society. 

[dubbel zout]

13 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

she was the fourth daughter

Third—her elder sisters are Jane and Sarah.

[Umbelina]

13 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

They might trade places for a week or a month, but forever? I doubt it. Royal life is a grind. A very luxurious grind in many ways, but a grind.

So is the life of millions who are starving to death around the world, or those that need medical care and can't afford it.  Or single mothers who barely see their kids while they try to pay for shelter/food/all the rest AND day care.

Oh yeah, I stand by "millions would swap" and it would take almost no thought at all to make that decision.

The Queen may have engagements and the rest, but when I talked about jetting off to a private island, I specifically mentioned another royal, Margaret.  Not all royals are The Sovereign.

Yeah, not going to feel sorry for extremely wealthy people who did nothing at all to deserve it except have the right sperm meeting the right egg and the proper time.  (That goes for most inherited wealth though, not just the Royals.)

In general, though I can see other points of view, I pretty much agree with Christopher Hitchens on this subject.  It's absurd.

[Roseanna]

On 10/17/2020 at 3:31 PM, dubbel zout said:

Third—her elder sisters are Jane and Sarah.

Sorry. Diana was the fourth child, but the third daughter. One son had died before she was born and Charles was born after her. 

On 10/17/2020 at 8:11 AM, merylinkid said:

So when he is told by his father to marry that girl or let her go, he does the "honorable" thing and marries her.   

It wasn't only Philip. There was "the mystery woman in the train" who was said to be Diana which was denied but in any case her reputation was in danger. And in general, the British tabloids fell in love with Diana and urged Charles to propose.

One can ask: what if there hadn't been a paparazzi in Balmoral and Diana hadn't after it been harassed by the paparazzi and in general, what if Charles and Diana would have dated privately and without any pressure some time and get to know each other - then they would never have married. 

    

[Ellaria]

On 10/17/2020 at 4:17 PM, Roseanna said:

That.

And more: she was the fourth daughter and her sex was a disappointment to her father who longed for a son to inherit the Earl's title and lands. She wasn't good at school and got no profession. Her only ambition was to make a good marriage, if possibly better than her older sisters. So there was a feeling of superiority (as a daughter of an Earl) combined a sense of inferiority that demanded compensation and that was made possible by the British class society. 

Honestly...that's a harsh description about someone that you don't personally know. it is fine for any of us to say we have read books, etc on these people. We are still relying on someone else's interpretation, even if it is their authorized biographers.

On 10/17/2020 at 9:11 AM, merylinkid said:

Diana was a flawed person.   Charles was and IS a flawed person.   Both caught up in a bad situation... 

...To sum up -- Charles and Diana - human with their good and bad points.   Being royal - pros and cons.     Like more people and life in general.
   

It seems fairly obvious to me that the above two statements from @merylinkid are probably closest to the truth. Both were/are flawed people. Both were in a situation that they did not fully understand and did not control. We can fault them for their some of their choices but their union was doomed from the start. Diana and Charles were also failed by the people around them and their archaic lifestyles. The fact that "marrying a virgin" was still a thing in 1981 is ridiculous. 

Why can't we say that their was blame all on sides? 

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

So is the life of millions who are starving to death around the world, or those that need medical care and can't afford it.  Or single mothers who barely see their kids while they try to pay for shelter/food/all the rest AND day care.

Oh yeah, I stand by "millions would swap" and it would take almost no thought at all to make that decision...

...Yeah, not going to feel sorry for extremely wealthy people who did nothing at all to deserve it except have the right sperm meeting the right egg and the proper time.  (That goes for most inherited wealth though, not just the Royals.)

I don't think the debate should be whether or not millions would swap poverty for wealth. That's an easy answer. Rather, I think the appropriate debate is whether the average person would want the life of the Royal Family along with the limitations that come with it. As we have seen, the issue is whether "outsiders" (and that includes the British aristocracy, like the Spencers) can comfortably adjust to the rules that were created years ago. It is not simply the Windsors' wealth that creates the problems; it is their wealth + their rules. Does anyone but the Queen and her out-of-touch courtiers care about some of these "rules" like the need to wear pantyhose at formal events? Come on!

Wealth does not guarantee happiness and the Windsors are a great example of that. By nature of their birthright, they were handed great wealth as well as a life with limited choices in some matters (who you can marry, what your profession is). It is possible for me to resent that and feel sympathy as well. 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Ellaria Sand

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I don't think the debate should be whether or not millions would swap poverty for wealth. That's an easy answer. Rather, I think the appropriate debate is whether the average person would want the life of the Royal Family along with the limitations that come with it.

This is exactly what I meant. Being royal isn't just about being rich.

[PeterPirate]

Well, I think that if the monarchy manages to survive after Elizabeth II, it will be because of Diana Spencer.  

[formerlyfreedom]

A gentle reminder - as per the pinned "Notes from the Forum Mods", any questions should be directed to the forum moderators via PM - that would be @Athena and @saoirse for this forum.

Additionally - it is okay for people to have differing opinions. It is NOT okay to be rude or uncivil to a fellow poster because they have a different opinion than you do. Please continue to be civil to your fellow posters.

Thank you.

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Rather, I think the appropriate debate is whether the average person would want the life of the Royal Family along with the limitations that come with it. As we have seen, the issue is whether "outsiders" (and that includes the British aristocracy, like the Spencers) can comfortably adjust to the rules that were created years ago. It is not simply the Windsors' wealth that creates the problems; it is their wealth + their rules. Does anyone but the Queen and her out-of-touch courtiers care about some of these "rules" like the need to wear pantyhose at formal events? Come on!

I think it's tabloid papers that make rules about pantyhoses.  

However, there are real rules. The most important rule seems to be that the royal family's job is to unite the people and therefore they must not meddle with politics by speaking about matters where there are different opinions. 

Then there are traditions like the Queen's Christmas speech and other happenings each year. And royals have a duty to celebrate their births, marriages and funerals in public.    

[Roseanna]

Hilary Mantel wrote also about Diana in her essay Royal bodies:

Quote

But a new world began, I think, in 1980, with the discovery that Diana, the future Princess of Wales, had legs. You will remember how the young Diana taught for a few hours a week at a kindergarten called Young England, and when it was first known that she was Charles’s choice of bride, the press photographed her, infants touchingly gathered around; but they induced her to stand against the light, so in the resulting photograph the nation could see straight through her skirt. A sort of licentiousness took hold, a national lip-smacking. Those gangling limbs were artlessly exposed, without her permission. It was the first violation.

When Diana drove to St Paul’s she was a blur of virginal white behind glass. The public was waiting to see the dress, but this was more than a fashion moment. An everyday sort of girl had been squashed into the coach, but a goddess came out. She didn’t get out of the coach in any ordinary way: she hatched. The extraordinary dress came first, like a flow of liquid, like ectoplasm emerging from the orifices of a medium. It was a long moment before she solidified. Indeed the coach was a medium, a method of conveyance and communication between two spheres, the private and the public, the common and the royal. The dress’s first effect was dismaying. I could hear a nation of women catching their breath as one, not in awe but in horror: it’s creased to glory, how did they let that happen? I heard the squeak as a million ironing-boards unfolded, a sigh and shudder as a collective nightmare came true: that dream we all have, that we are incorrectly dressed or not dressed at all, that we are naked in the street. But as the dress resolved about her, the princess was born and the world breathed out.

Diana was more royal than the family she joined. That had nothing to do with family trees. Something in her personality, her receptivity, her passivity, fitted her to be the carrier of myth. She came near to claiming that she had a healing touch, the ancient attribute of royal persons. The healing touch can’t be felt through white gloves. Diana walked bare-handed among the multitude, and unarmed: unfortified by irony, uninformed by history. Her tragedy was located in the gap between her human capacities and the demands of the superhuman role she was required to fulfil. When I think of Diana, I remember Stevie Smith’s poem about the Lorelei:

There, on a rock majestical,
A girl with smile equivocal,
Painted, young and damned and fair,
Sits and combs her yellow hair.

Soon Diana’s hairstyles were as consequential as Marie Antoinette’s, and a great deal cheaper to copy.

In the next stage of her story, she passed through trials, through ordeals at the world’s hands. For a time the public refrained from demanding her blood so she shed it herself, cutting her arms and legs. Her death still makes me shudder because although I know it was an accident, it wasn’t just an accident. It was fate showing her hand, fate with her twisted grin. Diana visited the most feminine of cities to meet her end as a woman: to move on, from the City of Light to the place beyond black. She went into the underpass to be reborn, but reborn this time without a physical body: the airy subject of a hundred thousand photographs, a flicker at the corner of the eye, a sigh on the breeze.

For a time it was hoped, and it was feared, that Diana had changed the nation. Her funeral was a pagan outpouring, a lawless fiesta of grief. We are bad at mourning our dead. We don’t make time or space for grief. The world tugs us along, back into its harsh rhythm before we are ready for it, and for the pain of loss doctors can prescribe a pill. We are at war with our nature, and nature will win; all the bottled anguish, the grief dammed up, burst the barriers of politeness and formality and restraint, and broke down the divide between private and public, so that strangers wailed in the street, people who had never met Diana lamented her with maladjusted fervour, and we all remembered our secret pain and unleashed it in one huge carnival of mass mourning. But in the end, nothing changed. We were soon back to the prosaic: shirtsleeves, stacking chairs, little sticks. And yet none of us who lived through it will forget that dislocating time, when the skin came off the surface of the world, and our inner vision cleared, and we saw the archetypes clear and plain, and we saw the collective psyche at work, and the gods pulling our strings. To quote Stevie Smith again:

An antique story comes to me
And fills me with anxiety,
I wonder why I fear so much
What surely has no modern touch?

In looking at royalty we are always looking at what is archaic, what is mysterious by its nature, and my feeling is that it will only ever half-reveal itself. This poses a challenge to historians and to those of us who work imaginatively with the past. Royal persons are both gods and beasts. They are persons but they are supra-personal, carriers of a blood line: at the most basic, they are breeding stock, collections of organs.

- - 

Is monarchy a suitable institution for a grown-up nation? I don’t know. I have described how my own sympathies were activated and my simple ideas altered. The debate is not high on our agenda. We are happy to allow monarchy to be an entertainment, in the same way that we license strip joints and lap-dancing clubs. Adulation can swing to persecution, within hours, within the same press report: this is what happened to Prince Harry recently. You can understand that anybody treated this way can be destabilised, and that Harry doesn’t know which he is, a person or a prince. Diana was spared, at least, the prospect of growing old under the flashbulbs, a crime for which the media would have made her suffer. It may be that the whole phenomenon of monarchy is irrational, but that doesn’t mean that when we look at it we should behave like spectators at Bedlam. Cheerful curiosity can easily become cruelty. It can easily become fatal. We don’t cut off the heads of royal ladies these days, but we do sacrifice them, and we did memorably drive one to destruction a scant generation ago. History makes fools of us, makes puppets of us, often enough. But it doesn’t have to repeat itself. In the current case, much lies within our control. I’m not asking for censorship. I’m not asking for pious humbug and smarmy reverence. I’m asking us to back off and not be brutes. Get your pink frilly frocks out, zhuzh up your platinum locks. We are all Barbara Cartland now. The pen is in our hands. A happy ending is ours to write.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies

[Roseanna]

On 10/18/2020 at 9:02 AM, Ellaria Sand said:

Rather, I think the appropriate debate is whether the average person would want the life of the Royal Family along with the limitations that come with it. As we have seen, the issue is whether "outsiders" (and that includes the British aristocracy, like the Spencers) can comfortably adjust to the rules that were created years ago. It is not simply the Windsors' wealth that creates the problems; it is their wealth + their rules.

Catherine Middleton would and she has evidently succeeded. 

But I don't think the crux of the matter is what "the average person" wants or not, because such a person wouldn't want to become a president or marry a hockey star, either. But some people want it.

However, it's probable no coincidences that marriages with other European royal houses have succeeded: besides personality, brides were adults women with own profession and career and their dating was longer.       

On 10/16/2020 at 3:09 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

When you cannot marry who you love, when you cannot choose your profession, you are reduced to being something less than your authentic self.

But how many people are really "authentic self"? Some scientists say that we only believe that we have free will. 

Let's compare: Harald of Norway said to his father in the 60ies that if he can't marry Sonja, he wouldn't marry anybody and after nine years of dating, they were allowed to marry. Instead, Charles didn't even propose to Camilla, nor even asked her to wait for him (although she would have probably declined as she loved Andrew and, as a sensible girl she was, didn't want a royal life). Wasn't Charles's fate really made by his character (of course connected with his upbringing and some coincidences, most Lord Mountbatten's assassination)?       

[Umbelina]

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a34301919/the-crown-emma-corrin-josh-o-connor-emerald-fennell-season-4-interview/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowFBTCO&fbclid=IwAR0eEyBsnLZLMpwprcThYWT6n2en3hw1iLKrUv6JjCG4kKghG7z-aJLjlyY

 

This article is about the young cast, but it's also pretty full of spoilers and history, so I thought I'd put it here for discussion as well.  (It was in the media thread)  Very interesting, especially as it goes on.  Cute video too.

[Roseanna]

On 10/16/2020 at 11:09 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

Margaret's inability to marry Peter Townsend because he was divorced

I think one must remember the age. If Jackie Kennedy had divorced from Jack in 1956 after she lost her baby and he wouldn't come back from the Mediterranean cruise until his father ordered him, he couldn't have become the US President. The 50ies and even the beginning of the 60ies was very conservative and hypocritical: it was OK for men in public offices to have affairs, but one must keep the respectability outside (although Britain seems to have been more tolerant than the US: many Cabinet members, including Prime Minister Anthony Eden himself, were divorced).  

However, in Britain there was three other factors: the trauma of Abdication, the Queen as the head of the Anglican Church that didn't wed divorced person, and the Conservative government after the radical changes of the Labor government after the WW2. Plus, the royal family was expected to be virtuous, behave better than ordinary people. 

Also, Britain was and is a class society. Because of his distinguished service during WW2, Townsend was chosen to serve the King, but he came from the middle class and, unlike the courtiers, didn't realize the danger of becoming too close with the royal family which would lead to neglect one's own wife and eventually lose her. Unlike the British divorce law at that time supposed, one can be unfaithful also without sex.     

[Umbelina]

 

In her new biography Prince Philip Revealed, Ingrid Seward writes that the Queen’s husband has compared Meghan Markle to Wallis Simpson, even though he welcomed her to the family at first.

Quote

“Philip’s way is that he says his bit, and then steps back from the situation because he doesn’t like to interfere,” said Seward. “It was up to Harry and Meghan to listen but they didn’t and Philip has always been very protective of the Queen so if anyone upsets her, they upset him too. His mantra is the monarchy comes first, second, and third. He cuttingly reminded the late Diana, Princess of Wales that being a member of the royal family was not a popularity contest but involved everyone working together for the good of the institution of the monarchy.”

Good Heavens.  Well, looks like there is another "attack Harry" book out, and a mix of past/present/future history.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Umbelina

[ruby24]

I don't understand why they hated Meghan so much. If they welcomed her at first, what happened? 

[dubbel zout]

Same thing that happened with Diana and Catherine: They expect the women to shut up and do what they're told. They're not supposed to have ideas and minds of their own.

[Fireball]

 

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Same thing that happened with Diana and Catherine: They expect the women to shut up and do what they're told. They're not supposed to have ideas and minds of their own.

I don't disagree that the royals expect the women to toe the line, follow protocol, and do what they are told. However, I don't think this should have come as a surprise to Meghan.  And if Harry didn't give Meghan a heads up he was an idiot.  

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, ruby24 said:

I don't understand why they hated Meghan so much. If they welcomed her at first, what happened? 

Prince Phillip is a crotchety old coot and spoiled rotten, he wants things how he wants them and when he wants them.  This writer apparently takes his word for everything.  Calling her Wallis?  Harry is FAR down the line of succession now, so it's a completely over the top comparison.

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Same thing that happened with Diana and Catherine: They expect the women to shut up and do what they're told. They're not supposed to have ideas and minds of their own.

Sadly true.

40 minutes ago, Fireball said:

 

I don't disagree that the royals expect the women to toe the line, follow protocol, and do what they are told. However, I don't think this should have come as a surprise to Meghan.  And if Harry didn't give Meghan a heads up he was an idiot.  

I'm sure he did warn her, and did try to negotiate with "The Firm" but when it didn't work, and he saw what was happening to his wife, which was SO much like what happened to his mother, with the added nastiness of racism?  He got his wife and his son out of there.  

Edited October 24, 2020 by Umbelina
the wallis stuff

[dubbel zout]

I think being told you have some say in how you want to support your causes and the reality of how you do it are pretty different. Diana shaking hands, ungloved, with an AIDS patient was shocking for its time, even though it was a simple human gesture.

Above all, no one wants the boat rocked, and every newcomer to the BRF is going to rock the boat simply by being a newcomer. Change for a lot of people is annoying, even if it's necessary.

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 

In her new biography Prince Philip Revealed, Ingrid Seward writes that the Queen’s husband has compared Meghan Markle to Wallis Simpson, even though he welcomed her to the family at first.

Good Heavens.  Well, looks like there is another "attack Harry" book out, and a mix of past/present/future history.

Not at all. There are very few mentions about Harry. He is liked by Philip who by sheer will came to his wedding despite his recent medical problems. They shared common hobbies, like hunting, but then Harry came late to the hunting party (where he was a guest of honor) and explained that Meghan didn't want him to participate in it. And finally Philip was disappointed at Harry and Meghan's unilateral notification which he regarded as discourtesy towards the Queen.

Come on, Philip is 99 years old, is served in WW2, was raised to put the duty first and had always been loyal to the Queen and monarchy. Although people with different values can't agree with him, can't they even understand him?  

[merylinkid]

I'm calling BS.   

Philip doesn't say his piece and step back.   Fergie still can't be at family events if he is there, even if the Queen wants her there.   When Charles and Diana were breaking up, HE was the one who wrote Diana and tried to help her.   The actual letters were publilshed so we know those are true.   HE was the newcomer once upon a time who tried to change things and was vilified by the palace insiders for it.   I haven't checked the tabs from back then but I'm betting they weren't all pro Philip.   He wants reform in the Royal Family, maybe on his terms, but he is not against change just because its change.

Is this an authorized biography?

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Is this an authorized biography?

No. I suppose it can't be done until he and the Queen are long gone.  

[Umbelina]

Sorry, looks like the link doesn't work.  Yikes.  I agree though that Phillip is 99 years old, and whatever words he said, and however they were cherry picked or placed out of context, is pretty disgusting.  At 99 you are, or should be, allowed, blunt assholey moments, as well as errors in judgement and memory.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/10/prince-harry-prince-philip-relationship

Ingrid Seward, author of Prince Philip Revealed, says that the Queen’s husband has been unable to comprehend why Harry, sixth in line to the throne, wanted to leave the royal family. Philip has now “walked away” from the situation after feeling that his advice fell on “deaf ears.”

Another take on it:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/23/to-prince-philip-meghan-markle-has-been-as-destructive-as-wallis-simpson-new-book-reveals/

This says a bit more about the author, Ingrid Seward.  She sounds lovely.  ahem

Seward has written more than 12 books on the royal family. Her biography of Philip follows two explosive books that chart the sources of bad blood that led to Harry and Meghan’s stunning break from the family. The books also uncover the depths of the royal family’s anger and frustration with Harry and Meghan’s repeated breaks with protocol before their ultimate decision to go their own way.

 

In “Battle of Brothers,” author Robert Lacey wrote that the once-solid bond of William and Harry  broke apart when the protective older brother suggested that Harry slow things down in his romance with Meghan. Harry grew angry and went ahead and asked Meghan to marry him.

As the future king, the Duke of Cambridge needed to be concerned about the survival of the royal family, and it’s clear from Lacey’s book that he saw Meghan as a disruptor.

[Roseanna]

On 10/25/2020 at 1:23 PM, Umbelina said:

Sorry, looks like the link doesn't work.  Yikes.  I agree though that Phillip is 99 years old, and whatever words he said, and however they were cherry picked or placed out of context, is pretty disgusting.  At 99 you are, or should be, allowed, blunt assholey moments, as well as errors in judgement and memory.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/10/prince-harry-prince-philip-relationship

Ingrid Seward, author of Prince Philip Revealed, says that the Queen’s husband has been unable to comprehend why Harry, sixth in line to the throne, wanted to leave the royal family. Philip has now “walked away” from the situation after feeling that his advice fell on “deaf ears.”

Another take on it:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/23/to-prince-philip-meghan-markle-has-been-as-destructive-as-wallis-simpson-new-book-reveals/

Remembering well the fights between generations in the 60ies, I don't think Philip isn't the worst. Besides, in any families and companies (Windsors are both) people tend to take sides and say much worse things.

On 10/25/2020 at 1:23 PM, Umbelina said:

In “Battle of Brothers,” author Robert Lacey wrote that the once-solid bond of William and Harry  broke apart when the protective older brother suggested that Harry slow things down in his romance with Meghan. Harry grew angry and went ahead and asked Meghan to marry him.

As the future king, the Duke of Cambridge needed to be concerned about the survival of the royal family, and it’s clear from Lacey’s book that he saw Meghan as a disruptor.

Actually, although saying that Meghan in the African interview was in self-destructive mood and the couple's tough negotiation tactics failed miserably, Lacey blames most the Queen's current Private Secretary who has no visionary ability, unlike his predecessor who could have found the couple a role but whom Charles had earlier got fired. The Queen realized the error and got him back in another capacity, but Harry and Meghan made their move too fast and too publicly.

As for William's exhortation to Harry "to take your time", that was perfectly reasonable in itself. But as all know, one shouldn't say things like that to a person in love because he doesn't listen but only gets angry towards the speaker and therefore, if the speaker's words turns out to be true, he is in the future unable to admit it, or even ask for help even in serious troubles.

I doubt also that William, thinking from his and Catherine's experience that living together years had made sure that the marriage would succeed and she would adapt to her role, didn't realize that Meghan had a career whom she just couldn't and wouldn't abandon for years and, most of all, was 35 when she and Harry began to date, so every year lessened her chances to get a baby. 

But William was accustomed to "protect" his kid brother and therefore didn't understand that despite their common childhood experiences, their mother's but their parents' constant quarrels (they have publicly spoken only about the former but never about latter), their personalities and, most of all, their roles were different. Williams's future was set and evidently he accepted his role, helped by his weekly meetings with his grandmother the Queen already when he was in Eton. Instead, Harry's role was uncertain and it lessened when William got children. 

[PeterPirate]

On 10/24/2020 at 6:19 PM, dubbel zout said:

I think being told you have some say in how you want to support your causes and the reality of how you do it are pretty different. Diana shaking hands, ungloved, with an AIDS patient was shocking for its time, even though it was a simple human gesture.

Above all, no one wants the boat rocked, and every newcomer to the BRF is going to rock the boat simply by being a newcomer. Change for a lot of people is annoying, even if it's necessary.

The times, they are a-changing.

 

[Roseanna]

Ingrid Seward writes in Prince Philip reveled: 

Quote

'My only comment at the time', Lascelles later recalled, 'was that, as Townsend must realise that there were obviously several formidable obstacles to overcome.' This differs from Townsend's account in his memoirs written in 1978, in which he said that Tommy was 'visibly shaken' and could not say nothing except that 'you must be either mad or bad'.     

Whatever was said, it appears Lascelles was not quite so as unfeeling as history relates. The very next day, he spoke to the Queen, reminding her about the royal marriages act of 1772 in which the Queen as the titular head of the Church of England could not give her formal consent to the marriage of her sister to a divorced man without the agreement of her prime minister, who at that time was Sir Winston Churchill. Lascelles confirms that when he discussed the matter with the Queen, the duke of Edinburgh and Princess Margaret in January 1953 'no conclusion was reached'.

Once the coronation was over and the press took up the story, Lascelles went to see Churchill at Chartwell [Churchill's country house] and found him more concerned about the aspect of the Commonwealth and their possible reaction to the marriage and its consequences if the Queen were to die and any child of the union would then be in line to the throne.

According to Lascelles, Churchill 'made perfectly clear that if Princess Margaret should decide to marry Townsend, she should renounce her rights to the throne'. Churchill also said that Townsend should be offered 'employment abroad' and wait until Princess Margaret was twenty-five before revisiting the situation. Eventually the Queen agreed, as it was the line of least resistance but in the retrospect it meant that the lovers still retained hope that they would eventually be together. Far from preventing the the love affair, of course, it made it all the more poignant, and when Townsend was sent to Brussels on a convenience posting and Margaret joined her mother on am official visit to Africa, they wrote to each other every day.

Years later, Prince Philip pointed out it was a disastrous decision and thought it would have been so much better to say 'no' straight away. There was however one advantage to Philip out of the whole unhappy business, which was prompted by Lascelles when he asked Churchill to remind the Queen that if anything should happen to her, Princess Margaret would become regent. Churchill proposed a new regency act of 1953, and for this the Queen requested that 'in the event of a Regent becoming necessary in my lifetime, my husband should be Regent and should be charged with the guardianship of the Sovereign.'

This meant the removal of Margaret's potentially most powerful constitutional role, which did not please her. But worse was to come when the new prime minister, Sir Anthony Eden, although sympathetic to her plight, traveled to Balmoral and had to warn Princess Margaret that she would have to renounce her royal rights, functions and income should the union go ahead              

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Roseanna
removing "a"