Earl and Countess of Snowden To Divorce: February 18, 2020

[Duc_et_Pair]

Perhaps they've lived apart for 2 years, in which case they can obtain a divorce now without assigning any blame to either party.

It is shocking that in 2020 the UK still has legislation which requires assignation of "blame" towards a party...

 

[Mirabel]

Yes. And similar rumors about Anne and Tim. Prince and Princess Michael are another couple that are talked about as being a couple in name only. Now that the divorce floodgates are open, we'll see if any others join in. If not, then the rumors were probably exaggerated a bit, and the couples are still comfortable with each other.

Don't forget the Duke and Duchess of Kent.
Apparently he wished to divorce years ago, and was refused.
If that's true, I wonder what he feels now?

 

[miss whirley]

Don't forget the Duke and Duchess of Kent.
Apparently he wished to divorce years ago, and was refused.
If that's true, I wonder what he feels now?

Yes, there use to be rumors about them. But with her faith the chances of divorce were always slim to none. Plus it was reported that after his stroke, the couple reconciled. I imagine almost losing a spouse, even if estranged, any latent feelings might resurface and remind you why you loved that person in the first place. I don't know if they are still happily reconciled but I'd like to think so.

 

[Nico]

Don't forget the Duke and Duchess of Kent.
Apparently he wished to divorce years ago, and was refused.
If that's true, I wonder what he feels now?

It's not the same situation, at all. The Duke of Kent was and still is an active member of the BRF.
The Phillips , the Snowdowns are just peripherical members of the extended family.
When Lady Davina Lewis divorced last year no one cared.

 

[Lilyflo]

to be honest, it seems as if some of the more obscure royal couples are leading separate lives but not divorcing.. in the "old fashioned " upper class way.

Oh definitely. When you have several homes (or even just one enormous one), it's not difficult to live separate lives while still remaining married. You can get together for family or social events & then toddle off back to your own space.

It is shocking that in 2020 the UK still has legislation which requires assignation of "blame" towards a party...

It's supposed to be changing soon but I think currently, a 'no blame' divorce still stands as requiring 2 years separation & mutual agreement to divorce.

 

[Denville]

It's supposed to be changing soon but I think currently, a 'no blame' divorce still stands as requiring 2 years separation & mutual agreement to divorce.

There is no "blame"... marital breakdown is the grounds for divorce.. but if you live apart for 2 years and are mutually agreed to divorce, it is a very simple case. If one party does not want to divorce, the separation has to be for longer.

It's not the same situation, at all. The Duke of Kent was and still is an active member of the BRF.
The Phillips , the Snowdowns are just peripherical members of the extended family.
When Lady Davina Lewis divorced last year no one cared.

Never heard that he wanted a divorce but teher marriage wasnt' very happy and they did not spend a lot of time together. I suppose that he might have wished for his freedom.. but the Duchess being a devout RC would not want a divorce.

 

[Nico]

Never heard that he wanted a divorce but teher marriage wasnt' very happy and they did not spend a lot of time together. I suppose that he might have wished for his freedom.. but the Duchess being a devout RC would not want a divorce.

It's just not the same generation. The Duke of Kent is from a soon bygone area where divorce was just not an option Separate lives, open marriage maybe but divorce was out of the question.

 

[Fijiro]

I have been hearing for close on 15 years now that Sarah and Daniel are living apart and only appear together for form's sake.

who are Sarah and Daniel?

 

[miss whirley]

who are Sarah and Daniel?

Earl Snowdon's sister and brother-in-law.

 

[dbarn67]

who are Sarah and Daniel?

Chatto. Sarah is Princess Margaret's daughter (Earl of Snowdon's sister).

 

[Biri]

It is shocking that in 2020 the UK still has legislation which requires assignation of "blame" towards a party...

And what about physical violence towards the spouse and children?

 

[miss whirley]

And what about physical violence towards the spouse and children?

If there really is blame by one party then by all means expose it for the divorce attorneys. But I think people in general are getting tired of the ubiquitous "unreasonable behavior" that most couples cite in their divorce papers.

 

[Alison H]

Divorce can be granted on the grounds of adultery, unreasonable behaviour (including violence), or desertion. Or 2 years' separation if both partners agree, or 5 years' separation otherwise. The upper classes used to get round it by paying a woman to spend a night in a hotel room with the husband - playing cards! - so that the wife could cite adultery, and then her reputation was unblemished, and no-one cared about him because it was considered OK for upper-class husbands to cheat . And they didn't have the embarrassment of having to name anyone they'd really been cheating with!

It's not about assigning blame - it's just so that people don't rush into getting divorced without thinking it over, if it's just that they've grown apart rather than that either or both parties have done anything wrong.

I knew plenty of couples of my grandparents' generation (a bit older than the Queen) who clearly weren't very happy together but muddled along because that was what you did. Peter Townsend was the innocent party in his divorce (his wife had had an affair), but he still wasn't considered a suitable husband for Princess Margaret because divorce was still seen as not being respectable. Times change!

That's a shame about the Chattos, if it's true. Now that divorce isn't an issue, you'd think people would make a clean break and move on.

 

[Lilyflo]

There is no "blame"... marital breakdown is the grounds for divorce.. but if you live apart for 2 years and are mutually agreed to divorce, it is a very simple case. If one party does not want to divorce, the separation has to be for longer.

I'm not sure what you mean. I already said that divorce doesn't require any 'blame' if after 2 years separation it's mutually agreed. If it's the word you object to, 'blame' has been used in the press and also by HMG in describing the proposed legislation. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-divorce-law-to-end-the-blame-game

 

[Gawin]

And we don’t get presume how she feels either as you seem to.

What I said was whose feelings matter in this divorce are those involved. The couple and their children. The feelings of the queen as a Christian or aunt really don’t matter. And no I think the queen is likely adult enough to understand divorce sometimes is best for all. And isn’t heart broken devistated or other words I have seen used.

The assumption the queen and her feelings should influence these two or Peter and Autumn are the presumptions I have issues with. The queen has a lot of influence but not on forcing marriage to continue.

The discussion centered on why the queen might feel saddened by the divorce.

Stating - as you did - "the only people it’s sad for are the couple and theirs kids" and "Her being a Christian had nothing to do with anyone’s marriage but her own" is presumptuous.

If others are saddened by the divorce that is their right.

 

[Minister of Court]

What a disgrace.

 

[camelot23ca]

According to some sources the couple had been living separately for some time. I wonder whether they tried/decided to stay together while the children were still around and now Margarita is turning 18 in a few months and off to college soon are calling it quits.

I’ve seen this happen a lot. Especially when a couple has the resources to be able to give each other space so that things don’t descend into a very acrimonious situation. They stay together until the kids are grown and then make things official. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between pre and post - divorce because each spouse has gradually been starting to do their own thing anyway, often over a period of years.

I think in the past the British royals and aristocracy made appropriate marriages and didn’t necessarily expect their spouse to be a source of support or even love. And there also wouldn’t have been any expectation of marital fidelity, at least for the men. I don’t think the character of relationships has changed much, it’s just now more socially acceptable for unhappy couples to get the divorce and officially move on.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The discussion centered on why the queen might feel saddened by the divorce.

Stating - as you did - "the only people it’s sad for are the couple and theirs kids" and "Her being a Christian had nothing to do with anyone’s marriage but her own" is presumptuous.

If others are saddened by the divorce that is their right.

She is not only Christian but also head of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith even. Then it is a little bit painful that all but one of the Queen's children as well all but one of QEtQM's grandchildren have broken their solemn vows and ignored Christian teaching of marriage ("for better or worse, until death do us part").

If these ladies and gentlemen have married in front of a civil registrar, allez... but all of them have been in a religious service "gathered here before Our Lord Almighty to engage in Holy Matrimony". Yes, then it is particularly painful that the "Defender of the Faith" did not succeed in transferring the Christian teachings "her clergy" preaches every Sunday...

Another argument to end that pseudo-clerical position of the Queen in a very multi-religious Britain, where the "without Faiths" are the biggest group anyway. Somehow it exposes the Queen as a unconvincing Head of the Church of England.

 

[Al_bina]

It is unfortunate that the Snowdons could not preserve their union.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Divorce is never pleasant, but it's better to get out of an unhappy situation so you can find someone who does make you happy, rather than stay with someone you don't love anymore or who may not love you. Life is short. Be happy.

 

[Denville]

I hardly think it is the queen's fault that 3 of her children have failed marriages… She is not responsible for their faults or problems.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I hardly think it is the queen's fault that 3 of her children have failed marriages… She is not responsible for their faults or problems.

No. But it speaks volumes about her track record as "Defender of Faith" and head of the Church of England: abysmal.

If we can not judge the Queen on that, why is she then "Defender of Faith" (it is pressed on every coin!) and head of the Church of England, with Lords bishops residing in the House of Lords even... It exposes it all as an empty egg: it means zero comma zero.

In the interbellum marrying a divorcee was reason for abdication. These days being a divorcee seems the norm at the Court... It is painful for the Queen, how symbolical her clerical position might be, it is a stain on "Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor".

 

[Fijiro]

No. But it speaks volumes about her track record as "Defender of Faith" and head of the Church of England: abysmal.

If we can not judge the Queen on that, why is she then "Defender of Faith" (it is pressed on every coin!) and head of the Church of England, with Lords bishops residing in the House of Lords even... It exposes it all as an empty egg: it means zero comma zero.

In the interbellum marrying a divorcee was reason for abdication. These days being a divorcee seems the norm at the Court...

Wasn't this church created so Henry VIII could get a divorce?

 

[Denville]

No. But it speaks volumes about her track record as "Defender of Faith" and head of the Church of England: abysmal.

If we can not judge the Queen on that, why is she then "Defender of Faith" (it is pressed on every coin!) and head of the Church of England, with Lords bishops residing in the House of Lords even... It exposes it all as an empty egg: it means zero comma zero.

In the interbellum marrying a divorcee was reason for abdication. These days being a divorcee seems the norm at the Court...

Im sure there are bishops' children who are also divorced.. does that mean that they are bad people or that they have doen something wrong? People are responsbile for their own faults and actions.
And the 1930s is a long long time ago.

Wasn't this church created so Henry VIII could get a divorce?

No, Henry did not get a divorce, he got annulments of his marriages.

 

[Fijiro]

No, Henry did not get a divorce, he got annulments of his marriages.

so The Church of England was created so Henry VIII could get annulments of his marriages?

 

[Denville]

IM not going to get into a religious argument whcih will probably get me told off..but the history of the C of E is a little more than Henry VIII

 

[O-H Anglophile]

No. But it speaks volumes about her track record as "Defender of Faith" and head of the Church of England: abysmal.

If we can not judge the Queen on that, why is she then "Defender of Faith" (it is pressed on every coin!) and head of the Church of England, with Lords bishops residing in the House of Lords even... It exposes it all as an empty egg: it means zero comma zero.

In the interbellum marrying a divorcee was reason for abdication. These days being a divorcee seems the norm at the Court... It is painful for the Queen, how symbolical her clerical position might be, it is a stain on "Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor".

1) That was the 1930s
2) Edward VIII was actually the King
3) Wallis was actually twice divorced.
4) The reasons for the abdication were a bit more complex than that anyway.

 

[wartenberg7]

I have noticed [amongst my own friends and family] that Divorce seems almost an hereditary condition..not invariably so [obv], but VERY often.. so i'm sorry for the Snowdon's but not [in the least] surprised.

Yes, I believe in that concept, too. Also the Lord Snodon was raised within very fragile circumstances, with two very fragile parents, spinning around themselves, having lots of affairs, drinking too much (well, keep my fingers crossed for the marriage of Lady Sarah Chatto...!).
On the other hand David Linley and Serena have been together for such a long time! Perhaps it was just what so many couples experience living together for years or even decades, the average growing-apart-from-each-other in the boredom of day to day life...?

No. But it speaks volumes about her track record as "Defender of Faith" and head of the Church of England: abysmal.

If we can not judge the Queen on that, why is she then "Defender of Faith" (it is pressed on every coin!) and head of the Church of England, with Lords bishops residing in the House of Lords even... It exposes it all as an empty egg: it means zero comma zero.

In the interbellum marrying a divorcee was reason for abdication. These days being a divorcee seems the norm at the Court... It is painful for the Queen, how symbolical her clerical position might be, it is a stain on "Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor".

Well, different from the roman catholic church, the church of England includes marriage and by that, possible divorce goes with it. It is not a characteristic of the Church of England, especially nowadays - and we speak about the 21st century! - to prohibit divorce. If you even look at some arab monarchies having muslim faith which, I´m sure we can all agree on, deal a lot stricter with the subject of divorce, royal people can become divorced.

I think all the Queen can do to "defend the faith" in modern times is giving a good example HERSELF, by being pious in life, doing her worships regularly, claiming that prayer does matter and so on - all the things she has done brilliantly since she ascended the throne!
It would be a strange thing to expect of her to prohibit two people, who, in due course, taking in account their own children´s age, could become grandparents themselves, to seperate or divorce...! IMO she also can not force the two due to divorce to stay together (she is neither Henry VIII nor Queen Victoria!) - what kind of head of the family would she be then....?!
And haven´t there been divorces even in georgian times (apart, of course, from the infamous one of the Regent and Caroline of Brunswick!)? I guess the mistresses of the sons of King George III had their share in keeping the one or another royal marriage running - without them I assume there would have been more divorces! And that although their father the King was a very religious and devout man, plus Defender of the Faith! But even back then...

*jaw drop*
What in the world is going on??? After 25 years of marriage???

I know a lot people seperating after such a long time - including my own parents after 31 years!
I think in the old days many couple´s didn´t live being married for 20, 25 or even more years as one of them might have died before (just think of all the deseases that couldn´t be cured 80 or 100 years ago or of how many younger women in their 20s and 30s died in child birth!), while the surviving partner eventually remarried again some time later. I´m sure longevity didn´t make things easier for marriage!

 

[MidwestMom]

This is so unfortunate. Divorce affects the whole family. When my son and his wife divorced (no children, thankfully) I felt as though a hole had been ripped in my family. I can only imagine how the Queen feels. Hopefully the rest of the year will be more peaceful.

 

[wartenberg7]

Less Royals at the Balcony in June ..

The Snowdons haven´t been "royal" at all! As virtual commoners with an aristocratic title they have been on that balcony as personal guests of the Queen to have a better view of the RAF fly past, not Royals.