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

[An Ard Ri]

Where do the Snowdons reside?

 

[wartenberg7]

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

Well, technically, yes! If H VIII didn´t desire to get rid of his 1st wife Catherine of Aragon to be able to marry Anne Boleyn, there would have been no reason for him, a firm believer in God (though, of course, he didn´t act like a christian, faithful man...), to seperate from Rome and create the C o England!

 

[Lilyflo]

Where do the Snowdons reside?

London & Gloucestershire I think.

 

[_Heather_]

When I first saw the headlines - royals to divorce' I assumed it was the Snowdon's as there have been rumours for some time that they have been living totally separate lives and only appear together when forced, by the Queen, to do so.

Peter and Autumn were a surprise but this one isn't.

I am still expecting the possibility of another divorce yet - three announced in the past 6 or so months (although the Gloucester divorce was actually nearly a year before it was announced).

Agreed. I can't say I'd be shocked to hear of at least one if not two more by the end of the year.

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.

I've heard the same. Frankly I heard more rumors about the Chattos than about the Snowdens but both are certainly out there in the rumor mill.

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

Well, there's definitely more to it than just that but yes, essentially, that was very much a significant factor.

 

[Alison H]

For people in the UK, Lucy Worsley will be addressing the idea that the Reformation was all about Henry VIII's marital issues in "Royal History's Biggest Fibs" on BBC 4 tonight!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I was quite surprised to learn that David and Serena are divorcing. Twenty-five years is a long time to be married.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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...

I agree with it all if she was Betty Windsor or, okay, Queen Elizabeth II alone. But no... She is what no any other European head of state is: Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor, pressed on every coin in the world with her profile.

If someone has the pretension to be a sort of Anglican Pope, completely with being anointed with Holy Oil et al at her Coronation, then this remains a painful situation for the Christian practice ("For better or worse, until death do us part") in the very own family of the Head of the Church of England.

 

[Osipi]

I was quite surprised to learn that David and Serena are divorcing. Twenty-five years is a long time to be married.

This is true but its also true that after 25 years, people grow and change and no one is the same person they were 25 years ago. In a marriage, you either grow together and change together or grow apart and what worked 25 years ago, no longer works.

The love and attraction and romance that brings a couple together can easily fade away as people grow older, look less attractive going into old age and unless there's a strong, intimate bond that is formed in the manner of being "best friends forever" and the thinking of remaining "you and me against the world" kind of thing, the marriage falters.

Perhaps this is why its not unusual for a marriage to be stronger, more intimate and stable when its the second time around no matter the length of the first marriage.

I can proudly say that I can attest to this line of thought. We're just two old goats in the neighborwood here and the second time around for us has been one where the honeymoon never ended no matter the challenges we've face through the years.

Sometimes, divorce is a blessing.

 

[Alison H]

The title of Defender of the Faith was granted to Henry VIII by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith against Protestantism! So I wouldn't get too worked up about it: it's an old title. The King of Spain still has the title "King of Jerusalem". Whilst I'm sure that the Queen's religious faith is quite genuine, I wouldn't think for one minute that she sees herself as an "Anglican Pope". And she's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England: the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England.


What is she supposed to do, force them to stay married and be unhappy? The days of people having to live a lie because of religious and social conventions are gone. All the best to them for the future.

 

[wyevale]

Duc_et_Pair

Both French 'most Christian kings', louis xiv and louis xv, had mistresses without number, the first fathered large numbers of bastard Children, and the latter had a marked 'penchant' for underage girls - Yet their titles were never questioned [let alone rescinded] by the Vatican.
As i'm sure you realise the Titles held by HMQ [such as 'Defensor Fidelis'] are part of our historic patriimony, just as 'most Christian' was part of the French one.

 

[LauraS3514]

The title of Defender of the Faith was granted to Henry VIII by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith against Protestantism! So I wouldn't get too worked up about it: it's an old title. The King of Spain still has the title "King of Jerusalem". Whilst I'm sure that the Queen's religious faith is quite genuine, I wouldn't think for one minute that she sees herself as an "Anglican Pope". And she's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England: the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England.
.

The Head of the Church of England is Jesus Christ. The Queen is the Supreme Governor and The Archbishop is the Prelate.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I agree with it all if she was Betty Windsor or, okay, Queen Elizabeth II alone. But no... She is what no any other European head of state is: Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor, pressed on every coin in the world with her profile.

If someone has the pretension to be a sort of Anglican Pope, completely with being anointed with Holy Oil et al at her Coronation, then this remains a painful situation for the Christian practice ("For better or worse, until death do us part") in the very own family of the Head of the Church of England.

What do you suggest she should do then ? Forcing dead marriage’s to remain together against their own wish - because she was once upon a time crowned ?

Times changes and even crowned heads must adapt to that if they want to keep their crown. I am sure it’s painful for her but at the end of the day, she can’t do Anything about it than trying to help and support as a good mother/Grandmother/aunt. She can’t force her own christian belief upon anyone than herself.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The title of Defender of the Faith was granted to Henry VIII by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith against Protestantism!

True the original title Defender of the Faith was given by the Pope but ... it was also removed by a later Pope after Henry split with Rome.

Parliament then gave Henry the present title Defender of the Faith so it is now a legal title given by the English parliament.

The title today isn't the one given by the Pope at all.

 

[Osipi]

There is also a major difference between society in the 16th century and in the 21st century. In Henry VIII's time, the church and its leaders and defenders were more instrumental in governing the spiritual and temporal lives of the people where as today, the church plays a more spiritual role in guiding a person's decisions in religious and temporal matters as deemed by their own conscious. Hence, many religions have relaxed their stances on divorce and remarriage. People are no longer burnt at the stake either for heresy.

In a matter of divorce between two people, it should be solely the decision between those two people to deem what is right for them. Being "required" to remain together because of a faith, stigma or even because of the children doesn't make any kind of a happy life for anyone involved.

 

[Somebody]

But why make your vows before God - if faith should not have anything to do with it?

If you only marry civilly, you are still legally married but at least wouldn't break your vows before God if you decide to divorce - even though you are still breaking your vows (or promise - depending on the country and wording) and it might be as painful for all involved if the marriage dissolves.

 

[OtagoLass]

To be blame the Queen is a bit unfair, lets remember of these divorced wives - Autumn, Serena's, Fergie's and Diana's parents are all divorced,children of divorced parents are more likely to divorce themselves.

It does seem rather telling given both Kate and Sophie Wessex's parents are not divorced yet their marriages are going strong (well I have not heard rumours otherwise that they are not).

But it might just one big coincidence.

 

[Curryong]

The Queen and Prince Philip have had a very long and lasting marriage. However, that didn't prevent three out of their four children getting divorced, in one case very acrimoniously.

And while Sarah's and Diana's parents were divorced Mark Phillips's weren't. It's simply the luck of the draw a lot of the time, especially with Royal marriages which have their own set of challenges.

 

[Countessmeout]

But why make your vows before God - if faith should not have anything to do with it?

If you only marry civilly, you are still legally married but at least wouldn't break your vows before God if you decide to divorce - even though you are still breaking your vows (or promise - depending on the country and wording) and it might be as painful for all involved if the marriage dissolves.

No one going into marriage goes into it planning to get divorced. The same reason some people say when asked about a pre nup- are you planning on divorcing me? They marry in a church withheld intention of keeping their vows.

The best laid plans of mice and men.....

It's why even churches recognizecdivorce or for Catholics, annulment. They did even in Henry Viii time. Even marriages entered with the best intention don't always work out p. If the couple has truly tried to make it work then what good is it the keep them together? Misery for all?

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I must admit I was surprised by the news as they didn't strike me from what we see of them as members of the public to be a couple who were on the brink of divorce. Even though the Snowdon children are older, I still hope that David and Serena come up with a solution in regards to parenting that works for everyone involved. No matter your age it's still nice to have both your parents around in most situations.

I don't think it's fair to say that divorce is "hereditary". Yes, it's true that in some families there are patterns of divorce but I'd say that's just due to the individual's personality and course of nature of their relationships. So a mere coincidence. In my own family; we have a history of warm, long lasting relationships but my parents separated before I was born and I never grew up knowing my father, so it goes to show that such patterns aren't often due to family dynamics. There are so many different factors and reasons as to why couples divorce, it's hard to pinpoint to one specific one.

 

[camelot23ca]

I think laying any responsibility for these divorces at The Queen’s door is unfair. She has led her life according to traditional Christian values. The Queen’s titles regarding the Christian faith were granted by men, and my understanding is that the decision was at least as much political as it was due to religious conviction. It’s admirable that the current monarch has stayed true to her own religious beliefs, but, as I’m sure she’s aware, Jesus himself knew that humans weren’t perfect.

With regard to her children having seen a stable marriage and three of them still divorcing, I think Elizabeth and Phillip were lucky to have turned out to be similar in their rock solid sense of duty. Duty to each other and to the monarchy. They also lived in a time when divorce for people in their particular situation would have been disastrous and when the media was much less intrusive which made it possible to keep any issues they may have had as a couple private. And still, there have always been rumours about some very strained periods in their marriage. So who knows what kind of relationship the four children actually saw?

I also think their first three children inherited some of their parents’ stronger personality traits, (well, really Philip’s), that likely made them not the easiest people to be married to, but Charles and Andrew, at least, did not get that unusually strong sense of duty. And then, of course, they married the people they did and the writing was on the wall. Edward is the wild card, although it seems like he and Sophie still enjoy each other’s company.

 

[Al_bina]

I must admit I was surprised by the news as they didn't strike me from what we see of them as members of the public to be a couple who were on the brink of divorce. Even though the Snowdon children are older, I still hope that David and Serena come up with a solution in regards to parenting that works for everyone involved. No matter your age it's still nice to have both your parents around in most situations... [snipped].

I fully agree with you.
On a different note, one hopes to see Lady Serena attending the Ascot race and other events. I think she is perfect, the height of chic.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Now THIS is a surprise and a disappointment. David and Serena are the most stylish and elegant couple in the BRF, imo.

 

[wartenberg7]

What do you suggest she should do then ? Forcing dead marriage’s to remain together against their own wish - because she was once upon a time crowned ?

Times changes and even crowned heads must adapt to that if they want to keep their crown. I am sure it’s painful for her but at the end of the day, she can’t do Anything about it than trying to help and support as a good mother/Grandmother/aunt. She can’t force her own christian belief upon anyone than herself.

Indeed! I also asked myself what he expected the Queen to do.... Perhaps throw these couples in the Tower of London...?!?

 

[wartenberg7]

This is true but its also true that after 25 years, people grow and change and no one is the same person they were 25 years ago. In a marriage, you either grow together and change together or grow apart and what worked 25 years ago, no longer works.

The love and attraction and romance that brings a couple together can easily fade away as people grow older, look less attractive going into old age and unless there's a strong, intimate bond that is formed in the manner of being "best friends forever" and the thinking of remaining "you and me against the world" kind of thing, the marriage falters.

Perhaps this is why its not unusual for a marriage to be stronger, more intimate and stable when its the second time around no matter the length of the first marriage.

I can proudly say that I can attest to this line of thought. We're just two old goats in the neighborwood here and the second time around for us has been one where the honeymoon never ended no matter the challenges we've face through the years.

Sometimes, divorce is a blessing.

I know us romantics don´t like it, but I think you are right: Divorce sometimes can be a blessing! I know quite some people divorce was a relief and perhaps a life saving measure!
That is why it is absolutely anachronistic to vow to stay together "for the rest of life" at a young age with somebody else as no body can look into the future!
Some of us experience a shift after, perhaps, 3 years of being married, some after 10 or 20 years. Not every marriage can survive that change.
The wording of "till death do us part" in the 20st and beginning of the 21st century is nothing but an old tradition, a promise to try. Everyone who claims otherwise is either naive or just does not want to face reality.
Remember the times when this was "invented" to be part of marital vows: For many people, luckily different in modern times, it was highly unlikely if one or even both of them were still alive after their 50th or 60th birthdays. As I said before, no matter how cynic this sounds like, but longevity is the greatest threat to the promise "till death do us part"!

 

[MARG]

I find the behaviour of this couple very intriuging. For all intents and purposes they have live agreeable separate lives to all intents and purposes. So it makes me wonder what has changed? Or, are they merely underlining that royal doesn't mean saintly (you'd think people understood that from the days of Henry VIII).

 

[Biri]

Or one of them (or both) fell in love again.

 

[Lilyflo]

It's possible for a married couple to lead separate lives reasonably happily until one wants to make a new life with somebody else. That's when it stops working so I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about a new partner and if so, good luck to them. Divorce is infinitely preferable to being trapped in a sham marriage for appearances sake.

 

[Alison H]

In the days before divorce was socially acceptable, many people were forced to stay with partners who were abusive. I don't think we want society to go back there. Obviously there's no suggestion of that with either the Snowdons or the Phillipses, but I don't think anyone should be criticised for ending their marriage, regardless of religion. Maybe they wanted to wait until the children were grown up, or maybe one of them's met someone else - who knows?

 

[Denville]

In the days before divorce was socially acceptable, many people were forced to stay with partners who were abusive. I don't think we want society to go back there. Obviously there's no suggestion of that with either the Snowdons or the Phillipses, but I don't think anyone should be criticised for ending their marriage, regardless of religion. Maybe they wanted to wait until the children were grown up, or maybe one of them's met someone else - who knows?

It is their choice what they do, but while no one wants to go back to the days when people had to stay with violent and awful partners, divorce isn't a good thing where there are children unless the marriage is violent, or seriously abusive or causing financial and other problems.
I think with these 2 couples they have just grown apart and gradually slipped into beinga way from each other more...
Problaby the Snowdons have quietly lived relatively separate lives for a time and decided they would end the marriage when their children were grown up as is now the case.. or possibly they have met new people and want to be free to remarry.

 

[Denville]

I think laying any responsibility for these divorces at The Queen’s door is unfair. She has led her life according to traditional Christian values. The Queen’s titles regarding the Christian faith were granted by men, and my understanding is that the decision was at least as much political as it was due to religious conviction. It’s admirable that the current monarch has stayed true to her own religious beliefs, but, as I’m sure she’s aware, Jesus himself knew that humans weren’t perfect.

With regard to her children having seen a stable marriage and three of them still divorcing, I think Elizabeth and Phillip were lucky to have turned out to be similar in their rock solid sense of duty. Duty to each other and to the monarchy. They also lived in a time when divorce for people in their particular situation would have been disastrous and when the media was much less intrusive which made it possible to keep any issues they may have had as a couple private. And still, there have always been rumours about some very strained periods in their marriage. So who knows what kind of relationship the four children actually saw?

I also think their first three children inherited some of their parents’ stronger personality traits, (well, really Philip’s), that likely made them not the easiest people to be married to, but Charles and Andrew, at least, did not get that unusually strong sense of duty. And then, of course, they married the people they did and the writing was on the wall. Edward is the wild card, although it seems like he and Sophie still enjoy each other’s company.

It is quite odd to blame the queen for her anointing as part of her coronation ceremony. It does not signify that she's a "female Pope", but it was part of her vowing to her God and her country that she would serve that country for life..It has nothing to do with marital situations. She is a sincere Christian.. and has managed to hold her own marriage together.. but if her children for many reasons ended up divorced, it has nothing to do with her...

I think there have been strains in her own marriage at times but she's managed to keep tehm private from natural inclination not to make things public and also because the press was less intrusive then. Perhaps had she been less religious or had been born at a later date, she might have considered divorce during bad times but I don't think she ever did....