The British Nobility thread

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by judith14011

No - don't think so. There is something very bizarre and hypocritical (in my opinion) of the acceptance of extra marital relationships in the British aristocracy both historically and presently.

I don't like using labels like "The British aristocracy" to describe the misbehaviour of a whole group of people born into that group. As a German, I'm reminded of our terrible history where such labelling of a group of Germans (those of Jewish origins)and connection to the character of all of them led to a crime beyond camparison. IMHO such labelling leads to nothing but prejudice and injustice for the single member of that group.

Especially historically seen when there were always different groups within the aristocracy with a different codex. It even happened within the same family: the first duke of Sutherland and his wife, who had been the countess of Sutherland in her own right were notorious for the way they dispersed his tennants off their lands and thus forced them to emigrate in order to not die of starvation while their daughter-in-law, the next duchess, was an activist against slave trade and influenced queen Victoria to keep a firm stance when it came to abolishing slavery....

[ysbel]

I think historically that extramarital affairs in aristocratic families was more accepted because it was generally assumed that marriages were arranged to secure the bloodlines.

I remember a 60 Minute special on the British aristocracy shortly after Charles and Diana married and one aristocratic expert said (and probably exaggerated) that all aristocratic marriages follow the same pattern: first marriage to a good family to secure the bloodlines, second marriage for love.

I think she exaggerated but there must have been enough of this in Diana's environment for her to reasonably expect that an affair could happen. And in truth, she seemed very supportive of some affairs of some of her friends. So it seems that she didn't oppose affairs on principle.

[Skydragon]

Historically being the operative word, IMO. Among my friends, there are less affairs, separations or divorces, than among our staff.

The evidence of affairs, separation etc came from Diana's family, where her mother thought it was OK to bedhop, IMO. That is what people tend to base their own expectations on.

Anyone can have an affair and to suggest that it is only in one section of society that it is rife, is insulting and untrue.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Historically being the operative word, IMO. Among my friends, there are less affairs, separations or divorces, than among our staff.

The evidence of affairs, separation etc came from Diana's family, where her mother thought it was OK to bedhop, IMO. That is what people tend to base their own expectations on.

Anyone can have an affair and to suggest that it is only in one section of society that it is rife, is insulting and untrue.

Maybe people getting this ideas have read too many of Nancy Mitford's books...

[ysbel]

I wasn't implying that only the aristocrats fool around, skydragon. I know its more common in the world today.

If the attitudes in aristocratic circles towards extramarital affairs changed then when do you think it did?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

If the attitudes in aristocratic circles towards extramarital affairs changed then when do you think it did?

I am not sure when it changed, my own father (c1920-30) was less than faithfull shall we say, but it was kept hidden because it was made clear to him, that it was not acceptable. Of all his children only one has wandered, because we saw the problems and were all determined that our marriages were going to work. My grandpapa (c1880-90) openly kept a mistress for many years. My gt. Grandpapa (1860-70) also kept mistresses (!) I am told.

The change has come about, I think, with the acceptance that women actually also have brains. When I was a young woman, I was not expected to look for employment, if I had ever had a thought in my head about earning my living, my parents would probably have disowned me. I don't believe any of my friends married their husbands with the acceptance that they would have a mistress, nor did my mama, my grandmama on the other hand, knew of the woman and the only time I can recall her mentioning her, was when I said I had seen grandpapa with ?? and she said, she was his friend and men 'had a need to get the dirty water off their chest'. I had no idea what she meant, as you can perhaps imagine!

[Elspeth]

I think part of the perception that aristocrats and royals have had more affairs in the past is that the aristocrats and royals are the ones whose lives are documented in more detail, so we know about their infidelities while we don't know what their less prominent contemporaries were getting up to. And it's more important (and interesting to people) if the heir to a dukedom or a monarchy is thought to be illegitimate than if someone from the middle classes or working classes is thought to be illegitimate - in the former case, the heir has to inherit the title and property whereas most people can, if they wish, leave their property to someone else.

However, there's also the perception that among rich and landed families, and especially royal families, marriages were made (until fairly recently) for reasons of property or dynasty, not because the individuals concerned had any feelings for each other. So the stage is set for arrangements of the sort where the husband and wife have sexual intercourse for the purpose of producing heirs, and the husband looks for affection (and maybe more regular sex) elsewhere while the wife either does likewise or consoles herself with her children and her possessions.

Although this is something of a cliché, there have been enough examples in history to back it up. Nowadays, when it's more acceptable for aristocrats and even royals to marry pretty much whoever they want to, and when divorce is much easier to come by, there's less incentive to stay in a marriage for the sake of appearances, so unfulfilling marriages can be ended rather than continuing while the participants look elsewhere for their soulmates and sex partners.

[ysbel]

I remember reading about the daughters of the late Duke of Westminster. One married the Duke of Roxburghe, the other married the Earl of Lichfield (photographer of Charles and Diana's wedding).

I remember reading where both couples divorced. The Duchess of Roxburghe said at the time that gentlemen couldn't be stopped from finding their little amusements on the side.

I don't know when the marriages and divorces took place and on the contrary I think the marriage of their brother the current Duke of Westminster is still going strong but I did think it strange that these two sisters who married British aristocrats from different families had similar experiences.

Does anyone know more about them?

[Russophile]

No, I don't, but your comment earlier, Ysbel, about the two marriages, reminded me of Alva Vanderbilt who said to marry for money the first time, then marry for love the 2nd. Though she did quite well both times and denied poor Consuelo her love.
There are certain people who will just have affairs. I don't think this whole thing judging the British upper class is really fair. I remember reading a book about Elsa ---oh her name escapes me! She was around during the turn of the century and had many adventures and was friends with the Prince who married Rita Hayworth. Anyway, she used to say that the French had it right, if the marriage didn't work, have your dalliances on the side but keep the family together.
Interesting, I wouldn't subscribe to it, but interesting none the less.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Russophile

No, I don't, but your comment earlier, Ysbel, about the two marriages, reminded me of Alva Vanderbilt who said to marry for money the first time, then marry for love the 2nd. Though she did quite well both times and denied poor Consuelo her love.
There are certain people who will just have affairs. I don't think this whole thing judging the British upper class is really fair. I remember reading a book about Elsa ---oh her name escapes me! She was around during the turn of the century and had many adventures and was friends with the Prince who married Rita Hayworth. Anyway, she used to say that the French had it right, if the marriage didn't work, have your dalliances on the side but keep the family together.
Interesting, I wouldn't subscribe to it, but interesting none the less.

That's interesting, Russophile. Consuelo was a favorite of Winston Churchill. I know her husband told her before the marriage that he was in love with someone else and his father wouldn't let him marry her. However that didn't seem to bother Consuelo as much as the way of life at Blenhein. She thought the castle cold and foreboding and she didn't really excel in the social duties that were required of a duchess. She appeared to me to be more of an intellectual recluse than a social butterfly and the social demands of her position must have weighed heavily on her. I was thinking that if she was a recluse, she may have preferred her husband to have something on the side to leave her alone. I think that if Consuelo had been left to her own devices, she would not have married at all.

However I saw a biography on her and they interview her great-grandchildren who all spoke very warmly of her. They said she was a very kind, very giving grandmother.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by ysbel

That's interesting, Russophile. Consuelo was a favorite of Winston Churchill. I know her husband told her before the marriage that he was in love with someone else and his father wouldn't let him marry her. However that didn't seem to bother Consuelo as much as the way of life at Blenhein.

It was a biography on all the Vanderbilts starting with Commodore. They said that on Consuelo's wedding day Alva broke it up and Consuelo was crying and couldn't/wouldn't stop. Wondering if that's where F. Scott Fitzgereld got his inspiration for "The Great Gatsby".

[Russophile]

Aha! Found it! "R.S.V.P.: Elsa Maxwell's own story." That's it!

[BeatrixFan]

When I was 16, I left school to escape an abusive alcoholic and for sins took a job as a maid-of-all-work (grandly advertised as a butler) in a stately home. Over the subsequent two years I visited some very grand houses indeed (which gave me my taste for all things ducal but the salary of a workhouse gin girl) and witnessed first hand the depravity of the upper classes. One very decadent house I spent a weekend in seemed to be infested by pairs of slippers outside bedroom doors - when I knocked and asked, "Did Your Lordship mean to leave these slippers here", I was greeted by several expletives followed by a rather detailed explanation by the cook of what it all meant. If a house guest had taken someone's eye or regularly had a bit of a ding dong with a fellow guest, they left their slippers outside their bedroom door and waited. What happens, I enquired innocently, if they get the wrong person. "More's the fun", replied the cook who's unfortunate looks meant that half of Imelda Marcos's collection outside her quarters wouldn't have brought in a man on heat.

One Christmas was spent in a draughty Castle and I was quite suprised to see amongst the wrinkly dowagers, a gorgeous posh thing with glittering eyes and silky black hair in curtains. I gave him a glass as instructed and as he took it, he quite deliberately touched my hand, looked up and winked. He must have been about 21 and as his parents chatted away, he became more and more bored. Well, it came to present time and he was dispatched to get the presents from his parents' landrover. "I'm not sure I know my way back down", he said. Now, he could have been being honest because it was a vast place but I'd like to flatter myself and think he was telling porkies. On cue, the lady of the house said, "Oh Sam'll show you down".

He said nothing all the way down the maze of stairs, until we passed a small corridor that led to the changing room the corporates used when they'd returned from a shoot. He suddenly turned, pushed me against the wall and proceeded to snog the face off of me for about 3 minutes. Then we popped along to the aforementioned facility and did what humans do so well. I never saw him again after that day and I don't even know his name. But I wish I did. On another occassion, I was given short shrift by a cocky chap with vowels that could only have been polished at Eton and a wife who reeked of Chanel Number 5 and sadly hadn't been blessed with a chin. For the entire weekend he shouted and bellowed, ordered and commanded and reduced me to tears in the pantry. How shocked was I when, in the middle of the night he appeared at my bedroom door with a bottle of pink champagne and made it clear he required domestic service for the rest of the night.

Of course it went on just as much amongst the staff and I had a 2 month affair with a Lithuanian farmhand illegally employed on the estate to help with the walnut harvest. It was all thoroughly debauched but just as upstairs turned a blind eye to morally questionable activities to us, so we turned a blind eye to their extra-marital relations. Though I think I was the only one to join in. The moral? Birds do it, bees do it and the British aristocracy have made an industry doing it - it only becomes a problem when they do fall in love. I knew of at least 2 regular guests who's husbands didn't satisfy and they'd found a buddy in a friendly face. It was all part of the weekend's entertainment and were you to get the working classes drunk and put them in a grand house with things like Oysters, they'd probably rut for England too.

The key in it all however, is that it's unspoken. Nobody mentions it, nobody argues about it and nobody reveals it's been going on. And that's where the whole caboodle became a problem for Diana. Charles and Camilla are more jolly hockey-sticks, "that's the way it is" types and so phone sex on a Friday and a quick fumble at Glynebourne is perfectly acceptable. If anything, I think they'd see Diana was abnormal for not finding a nice Major or Diplomat to do the same with. She was pretty, she'd have no trouble, why wasn't she taking part in country house shinanigins? Because Diana wasn't as grand as Charles and Camilla. There's a saying amongst the aristos, "Never marry a Spencer" - perhaps thats the reason. Diana looked down on wife swapping in an arena where it's a perk of the job. And so she got her heart broken. In that situation, I'm afraid one joins in with the band or you get your triangle bent.

Do the upper classes condone extramarital affairs? No more than the working classes is my answer, they just have greater opportunity to put it about.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

And that's where the whole caboodle became a problem for Diana. Charles and Camilla are more jolly hockey-sticks, "that's the way it is" types and so phone sex on a Friday and a quick fumble at Glynebourne is perfectly acceptable. If anything, I think they'd see Diana was abnormal for not finding a nice Major or Diplomat to do the same with..... ....Do the upper classes condone extramarital affairs? No more than the working classes is my answer, they just have greater opportunity to put it about.

Sorry Sam, I have to say I am horrified that you were subjected to that type of misuse and that if any of that went on at our weekends, I would know about it and put a stop to it, at once. I do know one of the persons you have spoken about and have told you exactly how he and his 'friends' are thought of.

Charles and Camilla's affair was not a quick fumble, nor was it acceptable behaviour, which of course is why it was kept under wraps, except from some close friends. The same way it was unacceptable for Diana to have her liasons, hence sneaking men into KP in the boot of her car.

From personal experience I do know that it became unacceptable behaviour and not something one had to put up with.

In every class of society you are, as you say going to have people having affairs, I don't believe it is more acceptable to people within the upper classes or aristocracy though. With divorces so easy to come by and the reminder that you could lose half of everything if it is proven that you are the adulterer.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Sorry Sam, I have to say I am horrified that you were subjected to that type of misuse and that if any of that went on at our weekends, I would know about it and put a stop to it, at once. I do know one of the persons you have spoken about and have told you exactly how he and his 'friends' are thought of.

Indeed. I believe they're what one might call the lower upper class. But to be honest, I didn't see it as dodgy or as a misuse - I just sort of went along with it. Then again I didn't know much different. I just assumed it went on everywhere but I'm glad to hear it isn't as widespread as I was led to believe.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The key in it all however, is that it's unspoken. Nobody mentions it, nobody argues about it and nobody reveals it's been going on. And that's where the whole caboodle became a problem for Diana. Charles and Camilla are more jolly hockey-sticks, "that's the way it is" types and so phone sex on a Friday and a quick fumble at Glynebourne is perfectly acceptable. If anything, I think they'd see Diana was abnormal for not finding a nice Major or Diplomat to do the same with. She was pretty, she'd have no trouble, why wasn't she taking part in country house shinanigins? Because Diana wasn't as grand as Charles and Camilla. There's a saying amongst the aristos, "Never marry a Spencer" - perhaps thats the reason. Diana looked down on wife swapping in an arena where it's a perk of the job. And so she got her heart broken. In that situation, I'm afraid one joins in with the band or you get your triangle bent. .

I have two questions though: Didn't Diana help one of her friends hide his affair? So it seems at one level she was accepting of an extramarital situation.

Second question, while Andrew Parker-Bowles appears to have just gotten his jollies by anything with two legs and a skirt , Charles seemed to break the cardinal rule of the type of infidelity you seem to be talking about and he didn't drop his mistress when she was causing trouble. As Russophile mentioned above, the rule seemed to be, 'Have your dalliance on the side but keep your family together'

It appears that Charles and Camilla rather than Diana were the fifth wheel in this type of arrangement. They were passionately in love and refused to separate from each other no matter the censure that came from others. Whereas I always got the impression from Diana that she would been less hurt if Charles had had a series of affairs with a bevy of beauties with whom he could get his jollies and whom he really didn't care about.

[sirhon11234]

Well the moral of the story is, that every class has extramarital affairs.
This is a touchy subject.

[BeatrixFan]

I don't see why it has to be though sirhon, it goes on and has been going on since man worked out what to do. It's a fact of life and sweeping those under the carpet and pretending it's cake crumbs never helped anyone.

[sirhon11234]

Well I guess because, the subject of extramarital affairs is somewhat taboo.
Its has always been swept under the carpet.

[judith14011]

Indeed. I believe they're what one might call the lower upper class. But to be honest, I didn't see it as dodgy or as a misuse - I just sort of went along with it. Then again I didn't know much different. I just assumed it went on everywhere but I'm glad to hear it isn't as widespread as I was led to believe.

Sam - I am interested to know if it was indeed an expectation that you would just go along with it and if you considered it a casual sexual liasion or rape? Has your perspective changed since when it happened and now?