Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Al_bina]

I think there is a difference between according something an "Importance" in one's life and "do govern a life".

I have to confess I'm really curious about how life is in Kazachstan at the moment, as we do have a lot of Russian-Germans from Kazachstan here and none as yet reported about a rather "Ancien Régime" kind of lifestyle there - which is the image you bring here.

Okay, there are different kind of people anywhere but still...

What kind of image do I bring here? I have not quite understood what you have meant. My opinion is an assumption about the lifestyle in the UK. However, I strongly believe that the English tend to be very conservative.
As for lifestyle in the modern Kazakhstan, it is a rather complicated mélange of traditions, the so-called Soviet past, and modern developments. Kazakhs are quite reasonable, when it comes to observing certain traditions. People from cities do not strictly adhere to traditions, whereas people from smaller towns pay more attention to traditions. There is no "Ancien Régime" kind of lifestyle (Jo of Palatine, 2007), but the personal lives of the first families are not a subject of discussion in the local media. You may call it a lack of democracy. A certain degreee of importance is assigned to protocols and subordination. As you probably know, Asians do their best in saving the face and maintaining impeccable reputations.
You can ask Russian-Germans from Kazakhstan as they may do a better job at describing the lifestyle.

 

[diamondBrg]

It could vary. Having your allowance stopped, therefore removing your social status was one of the options. Friends willing to house and feed you would soon dry up. Being stopped from having any contact with your family, (parents, siblings, Grandparents etc) and friends willing to go against their parents, it is amazing how 'alone' you can be made to feel. Employment options could be stopped by a phone call, everyone knew someone who could 'have a word'.

Social functions/dinners/balls etc would not come into it.

There were probably many who defied custom and tradition, unfortunately many of them discovered that mummy and daddy were right.

Am I understanding you correctly that PARENTS would be willing to negatively impact their own children(s) life economically and socially because they would not agree to marry a "pre-selected" suitor?

 

[Skydragon]

Am I understanding you correctly that PARENTS would be willing to negatively impact their own children(s) life economically and socially because they would not agree to marry a "pre-selected" suitor?

Oh yes, but we are talking back in the dark old days, it rarely happens now!

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Am I understanding you correctly that PARENTS would be willing to negatively impact their own children(s) life economically and socially because they would not agree to marry a "pre-selected" suitor?

I might be way off the mark, but my understanding (or lack of) from Skydragon's last post brings to mind the experience of Marina Ogilvy. It might be a too drastic example, and therefore inappropriate here, but it seems that her refusal to handle her pregnancy and marriage in the way her family preferred cost her some of these social and economic advantages. Am I warm or ice cold?

 

[ysbel]

Oh yes, but we are talking back in the dark old days, it rarely happens now!

skydragon, what time period are you referring to? When Camilla got married to APB or earlier?

The reason that I am asking is that I think this happened on both sides of the Atlantic in the early 1900s; it happened to my great-aunt in South Carolina who ended up having to go to Maryland to live.

In the United States though it was easier to pull up roots and move somewhere else to start life anew so the negative effects of a family's disapproval wasn't as severe as in England.

 

[COUNTESS]

It sounds like Amish shunning. Yes, parents turned their backs on children, but Ysbel that was a very long time ago. I am sure there are times it might happen today, but not as a rule. Yes, in the States there was some where to go that didn't give a hoot about your "family", I assume that would be true in England, too.

 

[Skydragon]

skydragon, what time period are you referring to? When Camilla got married to APB or earlier?

The reason that I am asking is that I think this happened on both sides of the Atlantic in the early 1900s; it happened to my great-aunt in South Carolina who ended up having to go to Maryland to live.

In the United States though it was easier to pull up roots and move somewhere else to start life anew so the negative effects of a family's disapproval wasn't as severe as in England.

I'm afraid we are still talking about the 60's, 70's and early 80's in some social circles. The 'power' of some of our 'upper class' families has, thank goodness, faded. Yes, you could always move to another city or even village, but you needed some money to do it and if your accounts have been frozen, you are rather stuck. It would have been hard to get work with accomodation, where do you stay until you find such a job? It is frightening when you realise the influence someone living in London can have on a company in (for instance) Derbyshire.

You would be amazed at how willing some people are to ensure you are returned to the bosom of your loving family!

 

[Warren]

Yes, in the States there was some where to go that didn't give a hoot about your "family", I assume that would be true in England, too.

Somewhere to go? A favoured destination for English black sheep was 'The Colonies', Australia included.

 

[diamondBrg]

I'm afraid we are still talking about the 60's, 70's and early 80's in some social circles. The 'power' of some of our 'upper class' families has, thank goodness, faded. Yes, you could always move to another city or even village, but you needed some money to do it and if your accounts have been frozen, you are rather stuck. It would have been hard to get work with accomodation, where do you stay until you find such a job? It is frightening when you realise the influence someone living in London can have on a company in (for instance) Derbyshire.

You would be amazed at how willing some people are to ensure you are returned to the bosom of your loving family!

I am speaking about adults. How does an adult have an account frozen and why would an adult be getting an allowance?

 

[ysbel]

I am speaking about adults. How does an adult have an account frozen and why would an adult be getting an allowance?

If the family is in a high enough income bracket then the children get trust funds when they reach an adult age and they can live off the income or allowance from the interest in the trust fund.

They can get a job on their own if they are qualified but in much reduced financial circumstances than they are accustomed to.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

If the family is in a high enough income bracket then the children get trust funds when they reach an adult age and they can live off the income or allowance from the interest in the trust fund.

They can get a job on their own if they are qualified but in much reduced financial circumstances than they are accustomed to.

Another thing to remember in the case of both Camilla and Diana:
They were part of a generation and social class of woman who typically did not go to university. This of course says nothing of the fact that neither of these specific people could have gone to university without the requisite A Levels, but even Diana's sisters and Camilla, having passed a good number of O Levels, opted out of the A Levels. I think it was typical of women of that generation and economic class, to only do the O Levels and then go to London and have a job like publishing, PR, teaching, or fashion job. Camilla most certainly had a trust fund and allowance, and Diana had her inheritance from great-grandmother and perhaps a trust fund too, so they were set to live in London and go to parties and find a nice wealthy man to marry. This is the path Camilla was set to take, and the path that all the Spencer sisters took, and Sarah Ferguson took this path. It was a typical 'Sloane Ranger' path, I think, typical for the time and socio-economic standing. Only Diana's brother, the family heir, went to the fancy schools: a posh feeder prep school, Eton, then Oxford.

 

[diamondBrg]

If the family is in a high enough income bracket then the children get trust funds when they reach an adult age and they can live off the income or allowance from the interest in the trust fund.

They can get a job on their own if they are qualified but in much reduced financial circumstances than they are accustomed to.

Now I understand and thank you!

It goes with the old saying "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

IF one is going to live their entire life off of someone else's money, then YES, they had better be prepared to do as they are told if they want to continue to do so. Personally, I have no problem with that.

 

[ysbel]

Now I understand and thank you!

It goes with the old saying "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

IF one is going to live their entire life off of someone else's money, then YES, they had better be prepared to do as they are told if they want to continue to do so. Personally, I have no problem with that.

Well by the time the money has been in the family for several generations, they ALL are living off of someone else's money, even the parents and grandparents which makes their right to deny their children the money a little interesting. But generally the wishes of the older generations are given preference in situations like this regardless of whether they actually earned the money themselves or not.

 

[diamondBrg]

Well by the time the money has been in the family for several generations, they ALL are living off of someone else's money, even the parents and grandparents which makes their right to deny their children the money a little interesting. But generally the wishes of the older generations are given preference in situations like this regardless of whether they actually earned the money themselves or not.

Then I would assume the grandparents did as they were told and the parents did as they were told, etc.

I seems to me that "empire building" with the joining of one well off family to another would certainly be a key component in the arranged marriages.

I can also see families wishing to see their daughters marry "up" or at least equal so they would no longer be needful recipients of family money if that was the goal.

The same thing still happens in the US today. Class divisions are still very prominent here in the US, they are just based on economics rather than birth for the most part.

 

[Skydragon]

If the family is in a high enough income bracket then the children get trust funds when they reach an adult age and they can live off the income or allowance from the interest in the trust fund.

They can get a job on their own if they are qualified but in much reduced financial circumstances than they are accustomed to.

The legal age was 21 back in the 60's and 70's and of course the trust funds are controlled by trustees, who if not parents, were friends of the parents.

Most women from the 'upper classes' were never expected to do something as terrible as work for a living.

 

[diamondBrg]

The legal age was 21 back in the 60's and 70's and of course the trust funds are controlled by trustees, who if not parents, were friends of the parents.

Most women from the 'upper classes' were never expected to do something as terrible as work for a living.

As an native born and raised American, I have some preconceptions about the British people. One of them is that while, as a whole, the British are very pragmatic and sensible and believe in dealing with reality head on, this is tempered by a code of etiquette and manners. Violating that code often has resulted in punitive measures both on a personal and societal level. What happened if a "upper crust" woman did not find a mate, even through her family's best efforts?

Since Great Britain has had Queens that reigned, some with absolute power in the past as well as Kings, why were women devalued and their worth relegated to second class status, even to Diana's generation? Yes, I know it has been the same here in the US, but up until the past three decades we rarely had women that wielded political and economic power. I am thinking most especially in terms of education of women in the past.

 

[Skydragon]

What happened if a "upper crust" woman did not find a mate, even through her family's best efforts?

Normally she continued to receive an allowance and became the ever popular 'maiden aunt'. The one you could go to, to rant and rave about the injustices you have suffered at the hands of your parents. She might 'have a word', but never totally risked her allowance being stopped or another favourite trick... delayed.

Since Great Britain has had Queens that reigned, some with absolute power in the past as well as Kings, why were women devalued and their worth relegated to second class status, even to Diana's generation? Yes, I know it has been the same here in the US, but up until the past three decades we rarely had women that wielded political and economic power. I am thinking most especially in terms of education of women in the past.

We were never meant to be anything other than good wives, society hostesses and mothers. Our prime duty was to support and enhance our husbands position! Our main education was geared towards this role in life.

 

[diamondBrg]

Normally she continued to receive an allowance and became the ever popular 'maiden aunt'. The one you could go to, to rant and rave about the injustices you have suffered at the hands of your parents. She might 'have a word', but never totally risked her allowance being stopped or another favourite trick... delayed.We were never meant to be anything other than good wives, society hostesses and mothers. Our prime duty was to support and enhance our husbands position! Our main education was geared towards this role in life.

Prime Minister Thatcher seems to have changed all that? <tic>

 

[Skydragon]

Prime Minister Thatcher seems to have changed all that? <tic>

Maggie Thatcher was 'working class' and referred to by some as 'the grocers daughter'. Personally I thought she was a brilliant example of an independent woman!

 

[diamondBrg]

Maggie Thatcher was 'working class' and referred to by some as 'the grocers daughter'. Personally I thought she was a brilliant example of an independent woman!

As was Madame Speaker Baroness Betty Boothroyd.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Nowadays it's quite popular in Germany's upper class family kids to go to university. We even have a real problem especially with girls who were actually good at school, so they have the marks to apply for a place to become a veterinarian. That topic is well-loved for all these girls had horses, of course... They start to study and a lot of them even finish their education. But they don't work as vets! Or if they do they concentrate on small animals like rabbits, dogs and cats.

While the male students who would work as vets for larger breeds like cattle don't get a place as these are occupied by the girls who had the better marks in their exams. So at the moment there is a discussion about restricting the acceptance of female students for this topic....Which is a difficult thing to do due to gender equality laws...

 

[Skydragon]

It is strange how times move on. I went to uni after the demise of my first husband and my parents were horrified even then. When my own boys and girls went to uni, everyone thought it was acceptable, although for the girls that was after finishing school.

Now if children don't go to a 'good' university and study certain 'accepted' degree courses, or go to RMAS, they are seen as failures by some.

 

[BellaFay]

It is strange how times move on. I went to uni after the demise of my first husband and my parents were horrified even then. When my own boys and girls went to uni, everyone thought it was acceptable, although for the girls that was after finishing school.

Now if children don't go to a 'good' university and study certain 'accepted' degree courses, or go to RMAS, they are seen as failures by some.

Surely this thread has rather strayed off its topic of Charles and Camilla's marriage and whether it would have been possible in the 1970s. The fact is that in 1972/3 Prince Charles being under 25 years of age could not have got engaged to Camilla without the express permission of the Queen. That is what the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 (as amended in 1956) says. We also know (thanks to docments released by the Public Record Office in 2002 after the Queen Mother's death) that the Queen was so determined to retain her powers under the Royal Marriage Act that she rejected the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor (the highest judge in the country) that the Act should be abolished because it was "totally anachronistic".
The law is still on the UK statute book to this day despite an attempt by a Labour peer (Lord Dubs) to put through a bill to abolish it in January 2005, with what he thought was Tony Blair's approval. When he stood up in the House of Lords to speak to the Bill, shortly after Blair had had his regular meeting with the Queen, he found to his surprise that government support ws withdrawn and the Bill therfore fell without being voted on.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes it has strayed, however in our defense, we started off discussing why in some quarters Camilla was considered unsuitable and how parents ensured that their offspring married into the family of their choosing.

More to do with parental strictures than any legal objections.

 

[ysbel]

skydragon and BellaFay,

I think you are both saying the same thing, am I not right?

BellaFay is saying that the lack of the Queen's permission would be enough to stop the marriage with Camilla.

skydragon is saying that in some quarters Camilla was considered unsuitable and parents ensured their offspring married into the family of their choosing.

It seems to me that the same forces were at work behind the Queen not wanting to give permission to a marriage with Camilla and the noble families wanting to ensure that their children married a suitable spouse.

 

[Skydragon]

I think you are both saying the same thing, am I not right?

It seems to me that the same forces were at work behind the Queen not wanting to give permission to a marriage with Camilla and the noble families wanting to ensure that their children married a suitable spouse.

In a nutshell!

 

[diamondBrg]

skydragon and BellaFay,

I think you are both saying the same thing, am I not right?

BellaFay is saying that the lack of the Queen's permission would be enough to stop the marriage with Camilla.

skydragon is saying that in some quarters Camilla was considered unsuitable and parents ensured their offspring married into the family of their choosing.

It seems to me that the same forces were at work behind the Queen not wanting to give permission to a marriage with Camilla and the noble families wanting to ensure that their children married a suitable spouse.

I have a question, since the UK is a member of the EU, do you think the EU's judiciary would find the Marriage Act in contravention of basic guaranteed human rights? How can you allow some citizens the freedom to marry at will at age say 18 and deny a tiny minority that right until age 25?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I have a question, since the UK is a member of the EU, do you think the EU's judiciary would find the Marriage Act in contravention of basic guaranteed human rights? How can you allow some citizens the freedom to marry at will at age say 18 and deny a tiny minority that right until age 25?

It's not so easy. Any member of the Royal family may marry in a civil marriage when he or she is over 18 years old. I'm pretty convinced that this marriage would be seen as legally binding. But there are the consequences to pay - a removal from the line of succession etc.

It was the same with the Imperial and Royal Habsburgs: they could marry without the consent of the emperor and the marriage was legally binding, but they were removed from the "House of Habsburg" immediately, thus loosing their priviledges.

But the Human rights laws in the EU are not about retaining privileges after marriage but about the ability to marry. This is not endangered with the Marriages Act. IMHO, of course.

 

[diamondBrg]

It's not so easy. Any member of the Royal family may marry in a civil marriage when he or she is over 18 years old. I'm pretty convinced that this marriage would be seen as legally binding. But there are the consequences to pay - a removal from the line of succession etc.

It was the same with the Imperial and Royal Habsburgs: they could marry without the consent of the emperor and the marriage was legally binding, but they were removed from the "House of Habsburg" immediately, thus loosing their priviledges.

But the Human rights laws in the EU are not about retaining privileges after marriage but about the ability to marry. This is not endangered with the Marriages Act. IMHO, of course.

Thank You very much! If they have the "legal" ability to marry then that is really all that matters. IF they fail to follow the rules and protocols to retain their "Royal" status and privileges then that is on them, as they have no "right" to them otherwise, imo.

 

[branchg]

I have a question, since the UK is a member of the EU, do you think the EU's judiciary would find the Marriage Act in contravention of basic guaranteed human rights? How can you allow some citizens the freedom to marry at will at age say 18 and deny a tiny minority that right until age 25?

Like any subject of the UK, members of the royal family are free to enter into a civil marriage at any time without permission of The Sovereign. However, the Royal Marriages Act states they may not marry without permission of The Sovereign up to age 25. After that, they are free to marry without permission, provided they declare their intention to the Privy Council and wait one year.

From a practical standpoint, today The Queen has little room to maneuver under the RMA unless the person is HRH Prince/Princess and in close succession to the throne. The penalty for marrying without permission under the RMA is limited to Parliament's right to act by passing a Bill in opposition to the marriage. Once that happened, the loss of all royal titles, styles and rights, and possibly exile from the UK, would be the weapons of punishment.

Since the modern trend has been for The Sovereign not to be unreasonable in withholding approval, I doubt any member of the royal family would dramatically marry without permission as required under the RMA.