The British Nobility thread

[BeatrixFan]

Well it was honestly never mentioned. I think once my employer's girlfriend asked me if I'd had a good night and naive me thought she was asking about the event I'd been working at so I said, "Yes thanks". Now I realise she probably knew what had gone on. I just assumed I was expected to go along with it and I suppose they assumed I was happy to just deal with it. But it never crossed my mind that it could be rape, definately not. I just saw it as something that had happened. Looking back I probably should have told someone or said something but if I'm honest, I was rather pleased it happened as it forced me to grow up even more than I had been forced to at home and in a way, I thought it very naughty and very dangerous which slightly appealed to a pure and innocent boy wondering what it was all about. I was over the age of consent and I hadn't resisted so in a way, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on anyway.

[judith14011]

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

__________________


Jo - as a docent and educator here at The Florida Holocaust Museum, and a therapist in private practice, I think that you are trying to make an analogy between labeling of people because of their behavior andmy comment on the British aristocracy having affairs as commonplace, but this is like comparing apples to oranges and does not and cannot be an accurate or objective comparison. People engage in behavior that their societies condone or condemn. Nazi Germany was and is something that very few events in human history that can compare. Hitler's War was less about behavior amd more about race and anything we may say on the "Charles and Tiggy thread" cannot compare in any way, shape or form. Who people are and how they behave are two different things. Based on my reading of history (Bristish and otherwise) there does indeed seem to be rampant infidelity among the upper classes in Britain, with much of it sanctioned as long as it was "discreet" (that word again.) My point is - discretion, which seems so highly valued in the British aristocracy, seems a bit bizarre given that the underlying behavior is so destructive to both self and others. In my little world, I have never seen a happily married couple who have other partners.


Skydragon - none of my asumptions are based on Frances Shand Kydd. Rather, they are based on British history dating back to Henry VIII and on up. You will remember King Edward's affairs, esp. with Lillie Langtry and Alice Keppel, Jennie Jerome (Winston Churchill's mother,) Edward VII's affairs with the married Thelma Furness, among others, Edwina Mountbatten (with both men and women) Sunny, The Duke of Marlborough, Vita Sackville -West and Harold Nicolson, Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles and yes Jo, pretty much all of the Mitford sisters. The list goes on and on. So Diana and her family don't have much to do with how I see what appears to be commonplace and socially sanctioned behavior as long as discretion is the operative word. Again, I stand by my position that this is bizarre behavior in my world but not in theirs so.........back to the original discussion, it does not seem so off base to me that Charles and Tiggy would have had a fling, other partners not withstanding.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by judith14011

Originally Posted by judith14011
Skydragon - none of my asumptions are based on Frances Shand Kydd. Rather, they are based on British history dating back to Henry VIII and on up. ......The list goes on and on. So Diana and her family don't have much to do with how I see what appears to be commonplace and socially sanctioned behavior as long as discretion is the operative word. Again, I stand by my position that this is bizarre behavior in my world but not in theirs

My reply to your post was thus - it isn't and hasn't been for many years. - I have said if you read on that whilst it may have been acceptable in the past, times have changed and had started changing for most members of the aristocracy, many years ago.

Therefore it was not an accepted happening at the time of Charles' 1st marriage. Nor do I think it was accepted by Camilla as inevitable, when she married Andrew.

Discretion isn't just about keeping quiet about an affair or accepting quietly your spouses infidelities. It is about not feeling the need to air your dirty linen in public, whether it is an affair or your spouse's habits. To be able to dine, shop or any of the normal things without drawing undue attention to yourself.

[judith14011]

Discretion isn't just about keeping quiet about an affair or accepting quietly your spouses infidelities. It is about not feeling the need to air your dirty linen in public, whether it is an affair or your spouse's habits. To be able to dine, shop or any of the normal things without drawing undue attention to yourself, as the Desiderta says 'to speak your truth quietly and clearly'.

[judith14011]

Skydragaon - I believe you are confusing "truth" and "discretion." Two very different qualities and attributes.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by judith14011

Skydragaon - I believe you are confusing "truth" and "discretion." Two very different qualities and attributes.

Actually not, discretion can be applied to all aspects of your life. The person that sits in a restaurant or cafe and tells her friends loudly about her love life is not discreet. The person who writes a book and tells their version of events (some true, most not) is not discreet, the person who yells loudly across a crowded room is not discreet, etc, etc. Truth has very little to do with 'discretion', it is, to me, more the way in which one behaves. So, as I said - Discretion isn't just about keeping quiet about an affair or accepting quietly your spouses infidelities. It is about not feeling the need to air your dirty linen in public, whether it is an affair or your spouse's habits. To be able to dine, shop or any of the normal things without drawing undue attention to yourself, - perhaps my quote from the Desiderta was confusing, so I have removed it.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by judith14011

Who people are and how they behave are two different things. Based on my reading of history (Bristish and otherwise) there does indeed seem to be rampant infidelity among the upper classes in Britain, with much of it sanctioned as long as it was "discreet" (that word again.) My point is - discretion, which seems so highly valued in the British aristocracy, seems a bit bizarre given that the underlying behavior is so destructive to both self and others. In my little world, I have never seen a happily married couple who have other partners.


Skydragon - none of my asumptions are based on Frances Shand Kydd. Rather, they are based on British history dating back to Henry VIII and on up. You will remember King Edward's affairs, esp. with Lillie Langtry and Alice Keppel, Jennie Jerome (Winston Churchill's mother,) Edward VII's affairs with the married Thelma Furness, among others, Edwina Mountbatten (with both men and women) Sunny, The Duke of Marlborough, Vita Sackville -West and Harold Nicolson, Camilla and Andrew Parker-Bowles and yes Jo, pretty much all of the Mitford sisters. The list goes on and on. So Diana and her family don't have much to do with how I see what appears to be commonplace and socially sanctioned behavior as long as discretion is the operative word. Again, I stand by my position that this is bizarre behavior in my world but not in theirs so.........back to the original discussion, it does not seem so off base to me that Charles and Tiggy would have had a fling, other partners not withstanding.

Judith, you're right that these people probably had affairs and they were members of the British aristocracy. But still it is IMHO impossible to say that "the" british aristocracy is this or that. There are unwritten laws about behaviour there and one surely highly praised is discretion. But - if somebody is involved in trysts or not is a thing of one's character and not of the class in which the person was born or was bred.

It's a bit like saying that communists are the better people because their concept of society has the better ideas about behaviour when in fact it doesn't matter at all if someone is a communist or an aristocrat when it comes to conscience and the way you personally view morals.

Just anexample: in Thai society (influenced by Buddhism) sleeping with various partners is no moral problem. The idea of "Madonna" and "whore" does not exist there. But I doubt that the Thai are different from other people when it comes to being faithful. I don't subscribe to the milieu-theory, I think people are as they are, no matter how they were raised. IMHO, of course.

And I never came across a book on manners of polite society in which cheating or adultery was thought of as acceptable.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by judith14011

People engage in behavior that their societies condone or condemn. Who people are and how they behave are two different things. Based on my reading of history (Bristish and otherwise) there does indeed seem to be rampant infidelity among the upper classes in Britain, with much of it sanctioned as long as it was "discreet" (that word again.)

The point that Judith mentioned above that I have bolded, I believe she means the upper classes in any society that condone discete infidelity, not just Great Britian. As an American this seems to us as bizarre behavior. Our society has infidelity, but we do not condone discrete infidelity. I think we have the highest divorce rate in the world.

[Jo of Palatine]

Sorry, but that is sounding so arrogant to me! As if the fact that Britain has not so many divorces is based on the fact that they condone infidelity, while the US-Americans with their higher morale doesn't do that and thus are more worthy.

And you know what: Bill Clinton had "no sexual relationships" with Ms. Lewinsky because of the society he lived in... Doesn't that tell you something? Clinton-Lewinsky could have happened in any society, but it need not have happened only because they have lived in that society. So of course Charles could have had an affair with Tiggy, but to say so with the only proof in his and her heritage is simply annoying.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Sorry, but that is sounding so arrogant to me! As if the fact that Britain has not so many divorces is based on the fact that they condone infidelity, while the US-Americans with their higher morale doesn't do that and thus are more worthy.

Can we please stop talking about groups of people in such generalizing terms? I find that that tends to lead to really bad feelings. Thank you.

I am sorry if I came across as arrogant. I am not saying Americans have higher moral or more worthy. Oh not at all. Look at a lot of our young stars and their problems. I just think Americans are "what you see is what you get in our actions. " I don't know Europe's divorce rate, but I believe our is higher. Sorry again, Jo if I offended you.

[COUNTESS]

What Georgiea was really saying and correct me if I am wrong, Georgiea, was Americans do not have an aristocracy, in which discreet infidelity is an acceptable situation. Sure, we have plenty of infidedity, no different than anywhere else. It just isn't one of these upper class, hush, hush type of things. Not only may Charles have had one of those type of situations with Tiggy and I don't know or care either way, but, her certainly, did with Camilla and until it really spread itself out in public, was it unacceptable. Had no one spoken, Andrew would have continued with his life and Camilla with hers. Bill Clinton came from a poor background, he had no upper class pretentions. Of course, that does not make that accpetable, either.

[ysbel]

upper classes in America have had discreet infidelities and the wives have looked away. One need look no further than JFK and Jackie and FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt.

FDR and Eleanor were particularly incompatible and FDR had affairs but Eleanor stayed with him because she shared his political ideals and she thought what he was doing for the country was important and worthwhile and she wanted to support it regardless of what she saw in him as a companion.

Jackie Kennedy likewise was born for the role of First Lady and she had a lot of cross thoughts about Jack's infidelities and his worth as a husband but she welcomed his giving her the stage that she so dazzled the world with and was very staunch in the defense of her husband.

Oddly enough, Jackie said that towards the end of his life, JFK and she became closer because with the demands of the Presidency and the heightened security, the family became isolated but in that isolation they became closer and towards the end of his life, he had more of a real marriage with Jackie than ever before.

[sirhon11234]

Oh my God I didn't know FDR had affairs.

[AuroraB]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Oh my God I didn't know FDR had affairs.

Yup, and so did Eisenhower during WWII.

[COUNTESS]

Yes, FDR kept a mistress in the White House. It wasn't easy for him to get around. Jackie loved Jack and as you said Ysbel, he gave her the stage and wasn't upset by her having the stage. She was used to infidelity, as her father Jack Bouvier was a master at it. So, you are right, the American "uppercust" did the same thing. But, her mother left her father because of it. Diana might have acted differently, had Chalres not been intimidated by her popularity. Maybe not. They were and are very insecure people. By the way, there is still an argument as to whether Kay Summers was Eisenhower's mistress or not. I have no opinion one way or the other.

[sirhon11234]

Well technically Thomas Jefferson was a widower when he began his relationship with his wife's younger half-sister Sally Hemings. She was his concubine until the day he died.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

What Georgiea was really saying and correct me if I am wrong, Georgiea, was Americans do not have an aristocracy, in which discreet infidelity is an acceptable situation. Sure, we have plenty of infidedity, no different than anywhere else. It just isn't one of these upper class, hush, hush type of things. Not only may Charles have had one of those type of situations with Tiggy and I don't know or care either way, but, her certainly, did with Camilla and until it really spread itself out in public, was it unacceptable. Had no one spoken, Andrew would have continued with his life and Camilla with hers.

Infidelity is no more acceptable to any of the classes in the UK, than it is any other country.

Discreet or not. Diana would not have married believing she would have to accept Charles' affair, nor did he marry expecting his wife to have affairs.

Far from believing Diana or Charles should have 'put up with it', As a 'I'm one of you' woman, Diana should have filed for divorce. If Charles was unable to cope with Diana and her problems, so much that he turned to his friend Camilla, he should have applied for a divorce, both of them before having affairs. Then again, I believe they should have had a much longer courtship and we could have been saved all the 'drama'!

[judith14011]

I agre with the above posts - there is something about the "upper crust" British and American. If you look at the history of the wealthy in New York at the turn of the last century - the Astor's, Vanderbilt's etc - much of the same re:infidelity. Money, power, opportunity - all tremendous aphrodisiacs. Add to that a lack of personal and relationship boundaries = affairs. The question again of discretion and tolerance of the offended spouses comes into play. Eleanor offered to divorce FDR if he wanted to be with Lucy Mercer but he declined and kept her secret from Eleanor. Eleanor was devastated when she learned that Lucy had been with him in Warm Springs at the time of his death, although FDR has polio and was very disabled. There was argueably no intimate contact between them given his health, but the emotional betrayal was just as painful for Eleanor.
My point - affairs are painful for those who are betrayed, no matter how "discreet' the offending partners are, which is why I find discretion as a quality is highly overrated.

[Skydragon]

It seems to be very easy to 'blame' the upper crust for all manner of things, most as Jo says based on stories from Mills and Boon.

I would imagine a lot of people would be offended if I made the statement that historically, evidence shows that the one parent family is normal and only happens within the poorer classes. (Something I do not believe). The only reason anyone knows about the affairs that happened in the upper classes is because nobody bothers too much writing about what the poorer classes get up to!

[COUNTESS]

I am sure infidelities occur in all walks of life. To think otherwise is foolish. That the "uppercrust" have more or less, is hard to judge. Of course, what often sets these apart, is that they are people of prominence. Nobody wants to hear about Joe the janitor and Jane the housewife. But that exists, too. And, yes, I am sure that having a spouse like Charles was painful for Diana. And, Skydraggon, is right she should have divorced him. Her alternative was poor.