The British Nobility thread 1: Ending 2022

[judith14011]

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

 

[Skydragon]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[love_cc]

Actually I don't see any difference. As I recalled, if not sufficent evidence presented to Bill Clinton, I doubt he would not admit his relationship with Ms Lewinsky or other women. Hillary and him certainly have denied all these allegations for years since he was the governor of Akansa.

I don't think anyone can truly accept the occurrence of infidilities in their own marriage. However for the children's sake, for the social face/position's sake, I do think discretion is still very important even beneficial in its own way for keeping the infidenties under the wrap. If I could choose, I would rather Diana had her own discretion to deal with Charles' infidenlties and carried her affairs with other men with more discretion. You can call it hypocritical, however I would rather Diana had enough discretion to deal with the situation and play a guarding role of the monarchy rather than a rebelling role to destory the monarchy. Of course this is my own view.

 

[COUNTESS]

Of course not, people don't publicly acknowledge their infidelities. That is why they are called infidelities. What happened when he was governor of Arkansas, is another issue. I am sure things happened. Lots of talk and inuendo. Believe me, it happened.

Many think that Diana should have kept her own counsel and looked the other way. They may be quite right. Others, might say, why should she have put up with his philandering. It is up to the person. A woman scorned is a very mighty thing. One can neither laud nor blame Diana, as no one really knows how she felt, nor has her personality, with all its pluses and minuses.

 

[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]

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.

 

[ToytownZara]

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.

Hmm...the Kennedys (JFK, RFK, Teddy, Joe Kennedy, etc.), the Fords (meaning Henry, who apparently had more than a few OTHERS), FDR (who actually DIED with his mistress present), Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson - while not titled, they're certainly upper class, and it was certainly hush-hush (I recall reading of JFK's exploits in the White House pool with Fiddle and Faddle - Jackie knew, the aides knew, EVERYBODY knew - but no one talked about it). The elder Kennedy men raised it to a higher art form.

I would put my neck out there and say there seems to be some sort of connection between money and this sort of thing, but then the poor working folks would have neither the time nor the resources to pursue it to the lengths the wealthy could. I don't know if that's the connection there or not - that the independently wealthy would have had the ways and means to do such things.

I'm not CONDONING anything, by the way - I've personally wondered what the connection is there for a long time. Because there DOES seem to be one.

Ah - I posted without scrolling all the way down - which I thought I had done - so my last post crossed! Sorry about that...

 

[sirhon11234]

The British Aristocracy's Attitude towards Extramarital Affairs

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]

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.

 

[selrahc4]

Skydragon and Countess have made the points which occurred to me while reading this thread. The perception that aristocrats or people who are socially prominent have more affairs than others probably arises because knowledge of these people and affairs are in the public domain. They are persons who are known of, though not personally known, and written about and spoken about by others who find them and their lives interesting. Celebrity gossip, in other words.

I've lived the majority of my life in a small village. No aristocrats. No millionaires. Believe me, infidelity and affairs occur here (and in the past), probably at around the same rate as anywhere else or among any other level of society. (Not me, though )

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

 

[ysbel]

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.