History Talk: The British Monarchy

[Razzberry]

Going back to Queen Victoria,  I posted this information once in the Victoria forum but I'm not sure people believed me.  I saw the program 'Private Lives of Monarchs' on the Smithsonian channel again recently and took down some quotes.

"She came into contact with a young Winston Churchill, who she liked, and it was said that the pair enjoyed chewing gum together - but this gum was laced with cocaine.  And this wasn't the only drug she was partial to." Dr. Tracy Borman, Chief Curator, Historic Royal Palaces

"She was partial to cocaine, opium, marijuana, and all the rest of it."  Dr. Matt Green, British Historian                         
"Queen Victoria loved her drugs."  Tony McMahon, British Historian

 

This could explain a lot.  Perhaps her withdrawal from public life wasn't entirely due to excessive mourning. 

[PeterPirate]

Whodunit?  

Meghan Markle's Name Was Removed From Archie's Birth Certificate But Not at Her Request
https://www.eonline.com/news/1233163/meghan-markles-name-was-removed-from-archies-birth-certificate-but-not-at-her-request

 

Meghan Markle secretly erases her first names from Archie’s birth certificate
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13898457/meghan-markle-erases-first-names-from-archie-birth-certificate/

[Ohiopirate02]

12 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Whodunit?  

Meghan Markle's Name Was Removed From Archie's Birth Certificate But Not at Her Request
https://www.eonline.com/news/1233163/meghan-markles-name-was-removed-from-archies-birth-certificate-but-not-at-her-request

 

Meghan Markle secretly erases her first names from Archie’s birth certificate
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13898457/meghan-markle-erases-first-names-from-archie-birth-certificate/

Apparently this is standard operating procedure for the Windsor-Mountbatten clan--title only for the non-royal parent.  Same thing was done with Diana and Fergie.  

[PeterPirate]

11 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Apparently this is standard operating procedure for the Windsor-Mountbatten clan--title only for the non-royal parent.  Same thing was done with Diana and Fergie.  

True.  I almost didn't post the story until I saw the bit about how the change was made without the consent of Harry and Meghan.

Personally, I think this is another one of those royal traditions that should have been kicked to the curb.  It would have shown that members of the BRF are human beings, not marionettes.  

[Razzberry]

I read that Kate has her real name on the kids birth certificates and she's higher placed on the food chain. 

Meghan Markle branded 'mini royal Kardashian' by Piers Morgan in latest attack

"If Meghan Markle thinks she can emerge from this as some kind of Princess Diana figure, she needs to think again. She's going to end up as a mini royal Kardashian, with all the ignominy that goes with that title.  I think already there's a big backlash in Britain, and when the rest of the world really sees this as what it is, which is a power grab by two ego mad self-obsessed virtue-signaling "progressive" young people who basically stamp their feet until the Queen rolls over."

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

I read that Kate has her real name on the kids birth certificates and she's higher placed on the food chain. 

 

Kate seems to be the exception to this, and I bet she and her family made sure she was listed.  Kate and her parents are smart and had time to make sure she got a better marriage settlement (or prenup if you will) than other non-royals who married in.  There is always room to negotiate even with the British Royal Family if you are willing.  

[Trillian]

On 2/5/2021 at 1:05 PM, PeterPirate said:

Whodunit?  

Meghan Markle's Name Was Removed From Archie's Birth Certificate But Not at Her Request
https://www.eonline.com/news/1233163/meghan-markles-name-was-removed-from-archies-birth-certificate-but-not-at-her-request

 

Meghan Markle secretly erases her first names from Archie’s birth certificate
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13898457/meghan-markle-erases-first-names-from-archie-birth-certificate/

Not shooting the messenger (thanks for posting) but I wish these and other articles would stop saying that H&M lost their HRH titles like Diana and Fergie. The latter two were stripped of the HRH; Harry and Meghan agreed (probably in the sense of being voluntold, admittedly) not to use them. Subtle distinction but an important one, as much was made of it at the time as leaving the door open for Harry to return to his senses and to the Firm. 

[One Tough Cookie]

On 5/26/2017 at 2:58 PM, Miss Chevious said:

And why doesn't Beatrice (Prince Andrew's older daughter) get her teeth fixed. Those teeth take over her entire face! 

I always thought both those girls had a rather equine appearance.

[AZChristian]

13 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I always thought both those girls had a rather equine appearance.

Neither apple fell far from the parental tree in looks.

[One Tough Cookie]

On 12/26/2017 at 10:40 PM, dubbel zout said:

Fergie's had money problems since her divorce. She thought that not pushing for more of a settlement would leave her on decent terms with the royal family, which it didn't, her bad luck. Plus, Andrew's naval salary wasn't that large—£30,000/year, maybe?—and he never had much of his own money. (Mummy supports him.) I think Fergie spent a lot of money trying to keep up with her much wealthier friends, and that put her in the red quickly. Her American endorsements and autobiography deal were to get quick money.

I think Sara believes that once the Queen dies she and Andrew will get together again.  I don't think  that's going to happen but you never know about those royals.  I have the feeling that Charles would not be pleased at the prospect.

[merylinkid]

It's not the Queen objecting to Sarah and Andrew getting together again.   Sarah has visted the Queen at balmoral since the divorce.   It's Prince Philip.   He LOATHES her.   So Sarah has to leave Balmoral when he shows up.   Once Philip goes, they will be formally back together most likely.  Charles can't say anything REALLY.   Andrew is so far down the line of succession no one cares.   Besides a remarriage solves all those "divorced but still in the line of succession" issues that are so outdated.   Not to mention, marriage to a lady of "a certain age" might make it easier to downplay the rumors of Andrew's interest in ladies of "an underage"

[PeterPirate]

Prince Harry and Meghan will not return as working members of royal family

Quote

The two camps both released statements on Friday, with the first announcement coming from the palace. The Queen has "written confirming that in stepping away from the work of the Royal Family, it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service," the statement said.

"While all are saddened by their decision, the Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family," it added.

A spokesman for the couple responded Friday that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex "remain committed to their duty and service to the UK and around the world" and have "offered their continued support to the organisations they have represented regardless of official role."

"We can all live a life of service. Service is universal," the spokesman added.

That last line made me think of a line near the end of A Few Good Men:  You don't need to wear a patch on your arm to have honor.

Edited February 19, 2021 by PeterPirate

[ruby24]

I don't believe for a second the royals consider Meghan to be a "much loved member of the family." I bet they universally blame her for all this.

[One Tough Cookie]

I personally think Harry is pussy whipped big time.  I see a movie in Megan's future....

[Notwisconsin]

On 2/17/2021 at 6:25 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

I always thought both those girls had a rather equine appearance.

Because she doesn't want to. She's going further and further down the chain of command, has a husband who loves her and a high paying job (a real one). The Queen is the Queen. Chuckie WILL be king if he outlives mummy. Wills and Georgie will be monarch when their time comes. No one else counts.

The only reason that anyone cares about these people is that the Queen is the last of the imperial powers to still have a monarch. Spain and the smaller monarchies, have just as interesting royals (Queen Juliana of the Netherlands had a court wizard and her husband nearly wound up in jail), but the media doesn't care, as the local tabloids aren't in english.

[formerlyfreedom]

Going forward, this topic is for historical discussion stemming from The Crown. It is NOT a spot for discussion of current events involving the British royal family. This includes discussion up through the projected ending of the series, which is roughly around 2000.  Posts that violate this directive may be removed and repeated violations may result in sanctions. Thank you.

[Fool to cry]

Thinking about the price paid that a Nazi sympathizer didn't remain on the throne was the happiness of his brother and his children and their children and their children and all future generations. Not too big a price if you consider the alternative but it has put the institution on less than firm ground.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Fool to cry

[Roseanna]

In BBC history magazine's november issue Sarah Gristwood has written a review about Andrew Lownie's book Traitor King: The Scandalous Exile of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. 

WW2:

Quote

But Lownie takes the charge further, suggesting in effect that no persuasion was necessary. It has hitherto been possible to envisage the distinction between the Nazis' proven desire to involve Windsor in their plans, and readiness on his part to comply with them. This view would see him as naive, perhaps self-serving, but essentially betrayed into imprudence only by his hatred of war. Lownie reveals Edward not as a dupe of the Nazis, but an active and culpable collaborator, still in treacherous contact whith the Nazis as the Battle of Britain raged.

Post-war:

Quote

Lownie portrays a duke whose charm was hugely outweighed by his narcissism, dishonesty, and enduring anti-Semitism. The duchess gets less space, yet emerges with no more credit.

 

[PeterPirate]

Just thought I would post this here, because I just learned the BRF is descended from Dracula.  

 

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Just thought I would post this here, because I just learned the BRF is descended from Dracula.  

 

That was a good series. Vlad is even more insane then I ever thought.

[Roseanna]

I just read Elizabeth & Margaret by Andrew Morton. It reveals that Anthony Eden who had become Prime Minister in March 1955 gave Princess Margaret generous terms in case she married Peter Townsend: she could keep her title of Princess with the appellation HRH, her royal duties and her civil list payment that would increase upon marriage from £ 6,000 to £15,000 (the latter is in 2020 about £400,000). The only sacrifice she must made was to renounce the right of succession to the throne on the behalf of herself and her possible children (which was anyway unlikely after the birth of Prince Charles and Princess Anne) and to marry in the civil ceremony.

Also, Margaret wrote on 15th August to Prime Minister a letter in which she told that she would make her decision only after meeting Townsend. That is, she wasn't sure that their feelings towards each others were the same after the two years' separation. 

Although Margaret's 25th birthday was on 21th August, they met only in October. After meeting two weeks in their friend's houses they evidently realized that and their feelings had changed, indeed they themselves had changed.

On the basis of Townsend's memoirs, it seems that Margaret didn't reveal him that she wasn't demanded to become Mrs Peter Townsend who must live on his salary (from which he paid his sons' boarding school) and at least some years abroad.   

It's also possible that the reason Margaret gave to the public - the the Anglican church didn't accept divorce - was genuine. She was religious, actually they both were. Of course today it seems strange that Margaret could have an affair with a married man (and later have affairs as a married woman) but abhorred divorce.

In any case, unlike The Crown, there was no pressure from Elizabeth towards Margaret, on the contrary she genuinely wanted her sister's happiness. And although she, as a constitutional monarch, had to follow the advice of the government, Prime Minister Eden had find a solution to Margaret's problem. 

[truthful]

I know there were those few incidents with cameras and cars during season 5 that were meant to foreshadow the death of Diana. But the part that made me gasp in my head was when Diana mentioned, I think to her brother, how she dispensed with the royal protection officers. And that of course did actually happen. Because I believe that decision of hers to do that was most likely a contributing factor that lead to her death.

[PeterPirate]

It's nice to know that Britannia is still a viable commercial enterprise.

https://www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk/

For that matter, Queen Mary is still a popular tourist attraction in California.  It closed down in 2020 because of the panorama and is due to re-open next month.

Regarding William's reaction to the Bashir interview:

What Prince William Said About Controversial Diana Interviewer

In Diana: The Last Word, (Simone) Simmons wrote: "William's reaction devastated her. He wouldn't speak to her afterwards and when he came home all hell broke loose.  He was furious that she hadn't told him she was going to do it...He felt she had made a fool of herself and of him...He was so angry with her.  He started shouting and crying and, when she tried to put her arms around him, he shoved her away."

Despite this initial outburst, Simmons wrote that the next morning the prince "came to her bedroom and presented her with a bunch of flowers."

Frankly, right now I am on Team Diana.  She had just as much right to air her thoughts as Charles had previously.  I think William's recent condemnation of Martin Bashir, is a backhanded way of undermining his mother's words, and sprung from a pro-monarchy, pro-patriarchy double standard.  In the end there were three people in that marriage.  

Also, the show seems to be accurate about how much Diana talked to William about her personal life, but inaccurate about the overall nature of their relationship:  

Prince William Was Princess Diana's "Most Trusted Confidant"

Brown writes that by the time he was a young teenager, William knew all the good, bad, and ugly details of his mother’s relationships with men and with the tabloids. For instance, Brown writes, 13-year-old William was invited along on a meeting with Piers Morgan, of all people, where Morgan said William insisted on having a glass of wine and seemed up to date on all of her affairs. William reportedly told Morgan he kept a photo of Julia Carling—the wife of a man Diana had been in a relationship with—on his dartboard at Eton. 

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Regarding William's reaction to the Bashir interview:

What Prince William Said About Controversial Diana Interviewer

In Diana: The Last Word, (Simone) Simmons wrote: "William's reaction devastated her. He wouldn't speak to her afterwards and when he came home all hell broke loose.  He was furious that she hadn't told him she was going to do it...He felt she had made a fool of herself and of him...He was so angry with her.  He started shouting and crying and, when she tried to put her arms around him, he shoved her away."

Despite this initial outburst, Simmons wrote that the next morning the prince "came to her bedroom and presented her with a bunch of flowers."

Frankly, right now I am on Team Diana.  She had just as much right to air her thoughts as Charles had previously.  I think William's recent condemnation of Martin Bashir, is a backhanded way of undermining his mother's words, and sprung from a pro-monarchy, pro-patriarchy double standard.  In the end there were three people in that marriage.  

Also, the show seems to be accurate about how much Diana talked to William about her personal life, but inaccurate about the overall nature of their relationship:  

Prince William Was Princess Diana's "Most Trusted Confidant"

Brown writes that by the time he was a young teenager, William knew all the good, bad, and ugly details of his mother’s relationships with men and with the tabloids. For instance, Brown writes, 13-year-old William was invited along on a meeting with Piers Morgan, of all people, where Morgan said William insisted on having a glass of wine and seemed up to date on all of her affairs. William reportedly told Morgan he kept a photo of Julia Carling—the wife of a man Diana had been in a relationship with—on his dartboard at Eton. 

Even adults can view happenings and relationships otherwise afterwards than at the time when they happened. The same applies even more to children and teenagers.

At 13 William had no knowledge what was "normal" and what was not in family life and the behavior of parent. Therefore, I understood how hurt and angry William, living in the happy marriage and as the father of three children, must have felt after learning how her mom's loneliness, vulnerability and paranoia was misused. Whether Diana understood it or didn't care about it, the fact remains that the interview caused great emotional harm to William himself. As he naturally loves his mom, he is even more angrier towards Bashir.

Also, now *he* is the chief guardian of monarchy after his father. He understands how the media works and, while willing to do co-operation as a part of his position, has also set a clear line what belong's to his wife's privacy.      

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Even adults can view happenings and relationships otherwise afterwards than at the time when they happened. The same applies even more to children and teenagers.

At 13 William had no knowledge what was "normal" and what was not in family life and the behavior of parent. Therefore, I understood how hurt and angry William, living in the happy marriage and as the father of three children, must have felt after learning how her mom's loneliness, vulnerability and paranoia was misused. Whether Diana understood it or didn't care about it, the fact remains that the interview caused great emotional harm to William himself. As he naturally loves his mom, he is even more angrier towards Bashir.

Also, now *he* is the chief guardian of monarchy after his father. He understands how the media works and, while willing to do co-operation as a part of his position, has also set a clear line what belong's to his wife's privacy.      

But William is not talking about the happenings and relationships of the past.  He's putting the past--including his mother's choices and words--into a crate and nailing the lid shut.  

I did a search on "Did Diana regret doing the Bashir interview" and this was the first thing that popped up:

Princess Diana Did Not Regret ‘Panorama’ Interview, Says Biographer; Piers Morgan Agrees

I'm not taking issue with what William is doing or why.  The Crown must win, after all.  My main complaint is with Peter Morgan and the choices he made in writing season 5.  I strongly suspect he wanted to not upset the BRF.  The result was that we got a version of Diana that was self-absorbed, easily manipulated, and a lousy mother, instead of the real-life version who was unique, complex, extraordinary, and irreplaceable.  

Edited November 17, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Spartan Girl]

29 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

My main complaint is with Peter Morgan and the choices he made in writing season 5.  I strongly suspect he wanted to not upset the BRF.  The result was that we got a version of Diana that was self-absorbed, easily manipulated, and a lousy mother, instead of the real-life version who was unique, complex, extraordinary, and irreplaceable.  

Well, I’m willing to bet William and Harry were upset by how they wrote their mother.

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

As he naturally loves his mom, he is even more angrier towards Bashir.

As he should be. And as for William not wanting to publicly dissect his mother’s choices, I think that’s perfectly understandable. Enough people have exploited Diana long after her death.

[truthful]

37 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

But William is not talking about the happenings and relationships of the past.  He's putting the past--including his mother's choices and words--into a crate and nailing the lid shut.  

I did a search on "Did Diana regret doing the Bashir interview" and this was the first thing that popped up:

Princess Diana Did Not Regret ‘Panorama’ Interview, Says Biographer; Piers Morgan Agrees

I'm not taking issue with what William is doing or why.  The Crown must win, after all.  My main complaint is with Peter Morgan and the choices he made in writing season 5.  I strongly suspect he wanted to not upset the BRF.  The result was that we got a version of Diana that was self-absorbed, easily manipulated, and a lousy mother, instead of the real-life version who was unique, complex, extraordinary, and irreplaceable.  

I think her portrayal in season five was far more nuanced compared to the previous season where she had at times a fairytale quality to her.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, truthful said:

I think her portrayal in season five was far more nuanced compared to the previous season where she had at times a fairytale quality to her.

Yes, in the beginning she was just an innocent girl (dressed as a tree, thus compared with nature). 

Charles's formative experiences were presented in two episodes (Gordonstoun, stydying Welsh) and in the scene about Prince's Trust there was clearly an echo of his speech as the prince of Wales ("an own voice"). 

Diana's childhood and youth would have earned also an episode.  

[katha]

I think a lot of these are structural issues that have plagued this series since always. It was clear that Charles would get a redemption arc of sorts this season already in the last series, since they turned him into a panto villain there. Same with the victim narrative Diana had, they were always going to complicate that this time around. It's not that her issues sprang out of nowhere in the fifth season, they were just severely underplayed in the fourth one. Same with Charles: Look at the Prince's Trust, they took the breakdancing episode from the 80ies and tacked it on here because it suited their narrative better. When it might have been better had they stayed more even-handed from the start and didn't pull focus in manipulative ways like that. 

But they've always made baffling choices like that. Look at making up that Philip was indirectly responsible for his sister's death and tried to murder Charles on that plane or whatever that scene was supposed to be. It would have been perfectly possible to make an episode about Philip's traumatizing childhood and difficult relationship with Charles without throwing in libellous nonsense like that and turning the thing into an absurdity. Yet they chose nonsense. 

Same here. I don't think making up that Charles wants his mother to abdicate does him any favors at all and I don't understand why they went that way. As I don't understand minimizing Khan, which would have shown that Diana had moved on to some degree. That said, I think Charles is still portrayed as petulant and self-absorbed, even if he's matured and found his voice to some degree and has a point about modernizing. And it's also fair enough to give Diana more responsibility for the trainwreck since she wasn't a young bride anymore but deliberately used the press. 

I did think slamming Bashir was warranted. He totally played into her fear and paranoia, leading to Diana distrusting and cutting people out of her life who had done nothing wrong. Including distrusting William because she started believing that he told on her. So I totally get his all-consuming rage. Talk about destroying relationships to get a scoop. And isn't her refusing royal protection also tied to Bashir? So yeah. His influence was catastrophic, way beyond the interview. 

In my view, the critical portrayal of Elizabeth in the 90ies is warranted. She was incredibly inflexible and stuck in her ways by that point. The reverence for her now kinda clouds how badly she operated in that era to some degree. 

[truthful]

3 hours ago, katha said:

I think a lot of these are structural issues that have plagued this series since always. It was clear that Charles would get a redemption arc of sorts this season already in the last series, since they turned him into a panto villain there. Same with the victim narrative Diana had, they were always going to complicate that this time around. It's not that her issues sprang out of nowhere in the fifth season, they were just severely underplayed in the fourth one. Same with Charles: Look at the Prince's Trust, they took the breakdancing episode from the 80ies and tacked it on here because it suited their narrative better. When it might have been better had they stayed more even-handed from the start and didn't pull focus in manipulative ways like that. 

But they've always made baffling choices like that. Look at making up that Philip was indirectly responsible for his sister's death and tried to murder Charles on that plane or whatever that scene was supposed to be. It would have been perfectly possible to make an episode about Philip's traumatizing childhood and difficult relationship with Charles without throwing in libellous nonsense like that and turning the thing into an absurdity. Yet they chose nonsense. 

Same here. I don't think making up that Charles wants his mother to abdicate does him any favors at all and I don't understand why they went that way. As I don't understand minimizing Khan, which would have shown that Diana had moved on to some degree. That said, I think Charles is still portrayed as petulant and self-absorbed, even if he's matured and found his voice to some degree and has a point about modernizing. And it's also fair enough to give Diana more responsibility for the trainwreck since she wasn't a young bride anymore but deliberately used the press. 

I did think slamming Bashir was warranted. He totally played into her fear and paranoia, leading to Diana distrusting and cutting people out of her life who had done nothing wrong. Including distrusting William because she started believing that he told on her. So I totally get his all-consuming rage. Talk about destroying relationships to get a scoop. And isn't her refusing royal protection also tied to Bashir? So yeah. His influence was catastrophic, way beyond the interview. 

In my view, the critical portrayal of Elizabeth in the 90ies is warranted. She was incredibly inflexible and stuck in her ways by that point. The reverence for her now kinda clouds how badly she operated in that era to some degree. 

It's going to be interesting to see how Peter Morgan writes the Queen changing as the Royal family moves into the 21st Century. Could give Imelda Staunton some award winning stuff next season.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, chediavolo said:

Yes that was pretty cool! My husband said if we were filthy rich and idle that’s a sport he would love to get into! 
As some others have said, I really enjoyed the past seasons better when the stories were told about things I have no knowledge of. I’m really sick of the Diana story. She was certainly not an innocent in all of this. there was a lot of bad shit going on between everyone involved. I believed that she was pretty much groomed to become Charles‘s wife is that not true? And why would the royal family go along with having someone with mental issues from such a horrible family life become the future princess? It was well known the  Charles was always in love with Camilla. If Diana had been healthier in her mind not to mention her body she could have made this a life of luxury and something that some of us can only dream of. She and Charles could’ve been amiable enough to raise their children together while having their separate real actual loves & liveson the side. No it’s not the conventional family situation but neither is anything about the Royals. it’s unfortunate that no one pushed her to get some psychiatric help. 

Diana grew up royal-adjacent and her grandmother was friends with the Queen Mother, but there was no master plan to marry her off to Charles.  If there had been, then Diana would have been raised differently and not allowed to live in London working various low-paying jobs.  When you read up on Diana's up-bringing, it becomes clear that she was an afterthought to both of her parents and her grandparents.  

[Roseanna]

26 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Diana grew up royal-adjacent and her grandmother was friends with the Queen Mother, but there was no master plan to marry her off to Charles.  If there had been, then Diana would have been raised differently and not allowed to live in London working various low-paying jobs.  When you read up on Diana's up-bringing, it becomes clear that she was an afterthought to both of her parents and her grandparents.  

Of course there could be no master plan because everybody assumed that Charles would be married when before she was 18 years old. After all, he proposed at least two times.

Yet, there was the old aristocratic presumption even in the 1980ies that girls don't have to study and get a profession with a decent salary, they just spend some time before marrying so well as possibly. Until then, Diana could work in a kindergarten and as a cleanlady to her sister because she had money enough to buy an apartment where she rented rooms.

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Of course there could be no master plan because everybody assumed that Charles would be married when before she was 18 years old. After all, he proposed at least two times.

Yet, there was the old aristocratic presumption even in the 1980ies that girls don't have to study and get a profession with a decent salary, they just spend some time before marrying so well as possibly. Until then, Diana could work in a kindergarten and as a cleanlady to her sister because she had money enough to buy an apartment where she rented rooms.

If there was a master plan, it would have been either Sarah or Jane and Charles, and Diana and Andrew (it pains me to type this).  Charles did date Sarah briefly in the 70s until Sarah failed to live up to Charles's expectations.  If Lady Fermoy was dead set on getting one of her granddaughters married into the Royal Family, she would have reigned in Sarah.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I am #TeamDiana. For now and forever.

That is all.

[Spartan Girl]

11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I am #TeamDiana. For now and forever.

That is all.

Same X 1000.

For all the talk about how Charles was supposedly “pressured” into the marriage, let’s not forget that she wanted to call it off when she put two and two about Camilla, but everyone else told her she couldn’t back out. Because what would have happened if she did, after all the hype built up over the wedding? Charles had The Firm watching his back, but Diana? The British people would have hated her. The press would have eaten her alive, branding her the scarlet woman who broke the Prince’s heart. Factor in her age, and you tell me who was the one who was really pressured into the marriage.

I find it astounding that so many people are willing to blame her for being needy and possessive, trying too hard to “force” Charles to love her. Like it was so unreasonable for her to want love, but not unreasonable that Charles just couldn’t let go of Camilla even though she married another guy. Even older and wiser women would have been pissed if her new husband had the audacity to keep pictures of his ex with him on their honeymoon.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[truthful]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Same X 1000.

For all the talk about how Charles was supposedly “pressured” into the marriage, let’s not forget that she wanted to call it off when she put two and two about Camilla, but everyone else told her she couldn’t back out. Because what would have happened if she did, after all the hype built up over the wedding? Charles had The Firm watching his back, but Diana? The British people would have hated her. The press would have eaten her alive, branding her the scarlet woman who broke the Prince’s heart. Factor in her age, and you tell me who was the one who was really pressured into the marriage.

I find it astounding that so many people are willing to blame her for being needy and possessive, trying too hard to “force” Charles to love her. Like it was so unreasonable for her to want love, but not unreasonable that Charles just couldn’t let go of Camilla even though she married another guy. Even older and wiser women would have been pissed if her new husband had the audacity to keep pictures of his ex with him on their honeymoon.

Everyone was to blame, and yes, that includes poor little innocent Diana. Who apparently only has to flutter her cartoonish large eyes like some kind of doe for people to forget that she's a human being with her own complexities.

[Roseanna]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:55 PM, Spartan Girl said:

I find it astounding that so many people are willing to blame her for being needy and possessive, trying too hard to “force” Charles to love her. Like it was so unreasonable for her to want love, but not unreasonable that Charles just couldn’t let go of Camilla even though she married another guy. Even older and wiser women would have been pissed if her new husband had the audacity to keep pictures of his ex with him on their honeymoon.

I am not *blaming* Diana. What I mean that her methods were such that they couldn't succeed. But of course it was not possible for her to use, or chose, better methods.

I believe that there was a chance, albeit small, that other kind of woman with sound self-confidence would have succeeded, if she had gone to the marriage with open eyes, had previous relationship(s) herself and remained friends with her ex-lover(s) - and, most of all, if she had loved Charles less. Unfortunately, such a woman would usually have sense not to sacrifice her freedom and privacy for becoming a royal.        

On 11/18/2022 at 9:55 PM, Spartan Girl said:

For all the talk about how Charles was supposedly “pressured” into the marriage

Charles had a duty to marry and produce an heir, but that's quite another thing than being  pressured to marry just Diana. Philip wroter to his son that he had to make a decision: either to propose to her or give her up, in order not to destroy her "reputation". If one has doubts before that the decision (as Charles had) that changes one's whole life and can't be retracted (as he then believed), the right decision is usually not to do it.

Of course, there weren't very many young women with suitable backround and religion for Charles to choose for his bride and the selection was still lessened by the old-fashioned demand of virginity, which disqualified eligible women nearer his age (and they of course knew of his relationship with Camilla). 

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, truthful said:

Everyone was to blame, and yes, that includes poor little innocent Diana. Who apparently only has to flutter her cartoonish large eyes like some kind of doe for people to forget that she's a human being with her own complexities.

I was never a big fan of Diana in that she seemed like *a lot* and I could easily imagine her being a nightmare to live with.

But it's just impossible to get around that the whole thing got started because a grown man married a teenager assuming she could be easily controlled and kept in the dark about whatever  he wanted and there's something satisfying about that blowing up in his face.

I'm also a fan of Bertha Rochester. 😉

[PeterPirate]

From the thread for Gunpowder:

2 hours ago, Magnumfangirl said:

Di liked to play the victim, but I wonder if an acknowledgement from the Queen that Charles had wronged her might have gone a long way to improve relations between Di, the royals, and the firm.  

I think that would have been an acknowledgement that there was something wrong with The System.  

In the end, I wonder if the only thing the BRF learned from the Diana Era was to allow commoners to marry into the family--presuming the Heir Presumptive has the smarts to marry a person who understands what she is getting into, and is willing to do so.  

TCMW.

Edited November 19, 2022 by PeterPirate

[PeterPirate]

Prince Philip and Penny Knatchbull's Friendship Is More Than What's in The Crown

Countess Penny remained close with the queen even after Prince Philip's death, and was even seen attending the the Royal Windsor Horse Show with her in May. They were photographed smiling as they watched from their seats.  

As far as I can recall, there have been four episodes that showed Elizabeth as progressive in her thinking and also proactive:  Marionettes, Vergangenheit, Dear Mrs. Kennedy, and 48:1.  Yes, these were probably just as fictionalized and fanciful as any other episode, but at least they were more interesting and imaginative.  Dumbing down the characters makes for a less intellectually-engaging show.  

Edited November 19, 2022 by PeterPirate
Add rant

[truthful]

5 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I was never a big fan of Diana in that she seemed like *a lot* and I could easily imagine her being a nightmare to live with.

But it's just impossible to get around that the whole thing got started because a grown man married a teenager assuming she could be easily controlled and kept in the dark about whatever  he wanted and there's something satisfying about that blowing up in his face.

I'm also a fan of Bertha Rochester. 😉

I wonder why there wasn't more pressure to put on Charles in his early 20s by family members to get married soon. Or maybe someone in the system saying "You know, requiring the woman to be the virgin is just wrong on so many levels. Maybe we should stop doing that?"

Of course, sadly, that was never going to happen.

[Roseanna]

16 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But it's just impossible to get around that the whole thing got started because a grown man married a teenager assuming she could be easily controlled and kept in the dark about whatever  he wanted and there's something satisfying about that blowing up in his face.

I wouldn't call a 19-20 girl a teenager and I even know some who had married a much older man and had a happy and *equal* marriage.

But it was true that Diana was very sheltered and immature. She shouldn't have married *anyone* at least five years' experiences of life.

I don't know if Charles wanted to control her and keep her in the dark (only he can know it Diana's interpretations afterwards are only guesses). But what is certain is that he was a bachelor set in this ways and it seems it never entered his heard that he should change at least some of his old habits after he married. He also used to be pampered by his staff and his mistresses (Camilla wasn't only one) and an equal relationship was a novelty to him.

[JudyObscure]

I think Charles married a 20 year-old woman because  (a) she happened to be the one he was dating when the pressure to marry was at a peak and (2) because he knew he had to marry a virgin and there weren't that many 20-something young women in his set who were.  When Diana was even younger, she  told one of her friends that she had to remain a virgin because she planned to marry Prince Edward.  She thought Charles would be taken by the time she was grown. 

I don't think Charles ever seemed the controlling, macho type.  His relationship with Camilla always seemed like equals with shared interests of horses and silly jokes.

Diana was the same age I was when I married, it was the average age during the 50's and early 60's.  Queen Elizabeth herself was only 21. I don't think it was her age that was the problem so much as her immaturity; refusing to take the advice of her supporters in the palace, throwing herself down stairs while pregnant, pushing her step-mother down a flight, daily hissy fits and firing over 40 servants, having affairs with athletes and playboy types (even before Charles went back to Camilla.) 

  If she had told the truth during that famous self-pitying interview she would have said their are a dozen people in our marriage and included her own lovers.

Yes, she was only 20 when she got married and she still acted that age right up until the night she and her boyfriend were laughing and encouraging their driver to speed through a tunnel on wet streets so they could out run the paparazzi, when all a mature mother of two would have done is turn out the interior lights of the limo and put on her seat belt.

[truthful]

I have a feeling that religion, with the Queen being the head of the church of England, will play a much bigger role in the sixth season. Historically, the Queen was huge on faith, especially after the death of her mum and sister. So it will be interesting to see how that plays out against letting Camilla and Charles marry. Wanting what is best for the crown and god vs wanting what is best for the future of the monarchy and her family.

[sistermagpie]

6 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I wouldn't call a 19-20 girl a teenager and I even know some who had married a much older man and had a happy and *equal* marriage.

Sure--I'm not arguing that nobody is old enough to get married at that age at all, even potentially to someone who is much older. But in this case it still looks the same to me. He was a full adult set in his ways who knew how all this was going to work based on life experience. She was a young woman who had not become the person she was going to be as an adult yet and had ideas about how this was going to go that were imaginary. I think he was completely gobsmacked that this girl wound up having more power than he did in the ways that she did - and he was equally unprepared for her unstable personality.

In some ways it reminds me of a great thing on another show where there's this character who has a string of failed marriages that seem like nightmares, yet he seems like a nice, if flawed guy. You wonder if there's something dark about him that has this bad effect on his wives. But in the end somebody just explains to him that no, his problem is that he keeps marrying girls in their early 20s who are still finding themselves. He stays the same and they develop.

[PRgal]

12 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I think Charles married a 20 year-old woman because  (a) she happened to be the one he was dating when the pressure to marry was at a peak and (2) because he knew he had to marry a virgin and there weren't that many 20-something young women in his set who were.  When Diana was even younger, she  told one of her friends that she had to remain a virgin because she planned to marry Prince Edward.  She thought Charles would be taken by the time she was grown. 

I don't think Charles ever seemed the controlling, macho type.  His relationship with Camilla always seemed like equals with shared interests of horses and silly jokes.

Diana was the same age I was when I married, it was the average age during the 50's and early 60's.  Queen Elizabeth herself was only 21. I don't think it was her age that was the problem so much as her immaturity; refusing to take the advice of her supporters in the palace, throwing herself down stairs while pregnant, pushing her step-mother down a flight, daily hissy fits and firing over 40 servants, having affairs with athletes and playboy types (even before Charles went back to Camilla.) 

  If she had told the truth during that famous self-pitying interview she would have said their are a dozen people in our marriage and included her own lovers.

Yes, she was only 20 when she got married and she still acted that age right up until the night she and her boyfriend were laughing and encouraging their driver to speed through a tunnel on wet streets so they could out run the paparazzi, when all a mature mother of two would have done is turn out the interior lights of the limo and put on her seat belt.

Marrying at 19 or 20 might have been fine in 1960, but was it as common in 1980-1981?  I looked Fergie up and she was in her mid-20s when she married Andrew.  You would think that Diana, being a couple of years younger, would have waited a few more years.  Or that Charles would have married earlier or married someone who had a bit more life experience.  

[supposebly]

Finding a virgin in her mid twenties would have been quite difficult at that time.

[MadyGirl1987]

3 hours ago, PRgal said:

Marrying at 19 or 20 might have been fine in 1960, but was it as common in 1980-1981?  I looked Fergie up and she was in her mid-20s when she married Andrew.  You would think that Diana, being a couple of years younger, would have waited a few more years.  Or that Charles would have married earlier or married someone who had a bit more life experience.  

I think it was. Marrying just out of HS/college. My parents married in 1981 and were just a couple years older then Diana(born in 1957 and 1958). A friend of my moms, same age as her, was already married and had a baby by the time of my parents marriage. In fact, an aunt of mine once told me she thought my parents weren’t going to have kids before I came along, based on how long (5 years) they were married before having me. People were just expected to settle down and have families sooner, I guess.

[Roseanna]

19 hours ago, truthful said:

I have a feeling that religion, with the Queen being the head of the church of England, will play a much bigger role in the sixth season. Historically, the Queen was huge on faith, especially after the death of her mum and sister. So it will be interesting to see how that plays out against letting Camilla and Charles marry. Wanting what is best for the crown and god vs wanting what is best for the future of the monarchy and her family.

It wasn't only, or even mostly, the Queen who decided. She was the titular head of state and church, but she had to act according to advice on the government and the Anglican church.

That was seen already in S5 when she had negotations with the Prime Minister and (evidently) the Archbishop of Canterbury before she decided to order Charles and Diana to divorce.   

[truthful]

8 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

It wasn't only, or even mostly, the Queen who decided. She was the titular head of state and church, but she had to act according to advice on the government and the Anglican church.

That was seen already in S5 when she had negotations with the Prime Minister and (evidently) the Archbishop of Canterbury before she decided to order Charles and Diana to divorce.   

I wonder how long the negotiations took for the marriage of Charles and Camilla to go ahead.  Like how did it all develop. Did the government and the church give their approval, with only the Queen herself, obsessed with the concept of duty, the last hold out? What role did the faith of the Queen play in her reluctance to see Charles and Camilla? How much of it was to do with trying to control the increasingly awful image of the royal family sullied by their tawdry tabloid ways?