The Hypothetical Question of Prince William Living with his Girlfriend

[tiaraprin]

Camilla's background hardly ever was a problem. The problem was that she was notoriously a red-blooded woman and had spent a great part of her youth hopping from bed to bed. That was the issue.

Would have Charles stayed faithful, it is unlikely she would have strayed. Diana can hardly been condemned from not approving nor sharing the wicked upper-class moral and its double standards. Whatever relationships Diana had in her life, it was after Charles did cheat on her and after she realised he did marry her out of love; so yeah, I intend to condemn him for the rest of his life.

Bravo Idriel!!!

 

[branchg]

diana had to have a virginity test. is this so that they can make sure her children are really heirs? will that be neccessary for kate if she marries wills? they have dna testing nowadays

This is nonsense created by the press at the time. Diana was no virgin at the time of her marriage and this was not a requirement. Of course, if a bevy of men started yakking about their relationship with her before she married, this likely would have diqualified her at the time.

Diana was required to undergo a medical exam to ensure she could bear children and didn't have any major medical problems to pass on. This is standard procedure for marriage to the heir to the throne. Whether William's fiancee will have to do the same is an open question, but I assume this would required as well.

 

[iowabelle]

Supposedly the Van Cutsems were kind to Diana while she was married to Charles, but turned on her the minute her and Charles divorced. For all we know Kate could/will be completely dropped by all those around William if/when they break up.

I think that one of most divorced couples winds up keeping the friends. And usually it's the one with the most assets and/or fame.

However glamorous Diana might have been, it all comes down to the fact that someday Charles will be king -- and people want an "in" with the monarch. I guess it's natural, most of these people's families have toadied to the monarch for centuries.

 

[branchg]

I looks to me like Kate's just trying to play her cards right. If she's patient enough and doesn't slip up there's a possibility that she may become Williams wife.

Kate would become more than just William's wife....she would become a princess of the UK with precedence directly after the Queen and Camilla.

If this actually happens, she would be the first woman in British history to become Princess of Wales and then Queen Consort who is not from a royal or aristocratic family.

 

[igilmo]

Really?? I didn't know she wasn't virgin at the time she married... that's not the image they gave of her at the time here in spain... they pictured her as the ideal bride for Charles, young, innocent, with no past relationships and this meant she was virgin... if she wasn't, what were her previous relationships??
thanks a lot

This is nonsense created by the press at the time. Diana was no virgin at the time of her marriage and this was not a requirement. Of course, if a bevy of men started yakking about their relationship with her before she married, this likely would have diqualified her at the time.

Diana was required to undergo a medical exam to ensure she could bear children and didn't have any major medical problems to pass on. This is standard procedure for marriage to the heir to the throne. Whether William's fiancee will have to do the same is an open question, but I assume this would required as well.

 

[wlb825]

I think that Prince Charles is coving him up for all the wrong he did in the past, He knows that it's wrong for Wills to be living with her but since Prince Charles did it before he no authority of telling him what to do. But I still think that it's wring for him to act this way.

 

[Elspeth]

Diana was no virgin at the time of her marriage

Your source? Since this contradicts a public statement made by her uncle at the time of the engagement, I assume you have something to back it up.

Ailstalia, I think it was a fertility test, not a virginity test. Bit of a waste of time to even think of applying the latter to Kate since she's been living with William for a while.

 

[iowabelle]

Your source? Since this contradicts a public statement made by her uncle at the time of the engagement, I assume you have something to back it up.

I don't know that your uncle is the most reliable source of information on that topic! (Mine wouldn't have a clue.)

While we're on the topic of the propriety of Kate and William living together, it occurred to me this morning that Sophie lived with Edward at BP for a long time. (Been so long I had forgotten about that.)

 

[iowabelle]

I meant, that you don't normally walk up to your uncle and announce "I'm not a virgin!" I would doubt that Diana's uncle was any better informed than anybody else's uncle. (Of course, it being the puritanical 1980s and with Diana apparently wanting to marry the prince, it would make sense for her uncle to say that if someone were rude enough to inquire.)

 

[branchg]

Your source? Since this contradicts a public statement made by her uncle at the time of the engagement, I assume you have something to back it up.

Ailstalia, I think it was a fertility test, not a virginity test. Bit of a waste of time to even think of applying the latter to Kate since she's been living with William for a while.

It has been well-documented in the many books written about Diana and the Spencers that Diana had several relationships with various aristocrats in her circle before her marriage to Prince Charles. Two were quoted as saying she was an experienced lover and very passionate.

In addition, several biographers, quoting members of the royal household at the time, have stated Charles and Diana were quietly lovers at Sandringham, Buckingham Palace and Balmoral prior to the wedding. I highly doubt Diana was a virgin.

 

[Duchess]

If you consider the behavior of his dad, which will be the next head of the Anglican church, not to mention the fact that he isn't even married religiously to his wife... well I really think we are beyond such moral considerations.
Not that I don't deplore it...

BTW, thank you Elpesth for your explanation about the Establishment .

not that i don't wish his father and wife best wishes but he's not the best role model for william when it comes to marriage.

 

[Duchess]

Sarah Ferguson's uncle was a Duke so she knew the ropes of the English aristocracy. Unfortunately the English aristocracy is not known for high morals and decency.

I would be delighted if William choses a royal or a nice middle class bride rather than an aristocratic woman. I still think he's too young to be picking a bride and if he's too young to pick a bride, he's too young to live with a woman to find out if she's a suitable bride.

Let him sow some wild oats first.

Sarah's uncle being a Duke still doesn't make her an aristocrat.

 

[Duchess]

Sarah is well-bred and born both upper class and of the aristocracy. Her father was from a landowning family and served as the Commander of the Sovereign's Escort of the Household Calvary Regiment, played polo with Prince Philip after WW2 and later served as polo manager to Prince Charles.

On her mother's side, Sarah's grandmother was born a Montagu-Douglas-Scott, a cousin of HRH Princess Alice, daughter of the 7th Duke of Beccleuch and 9th Duke of Queensbury, and traced her bloodline to Charles II. In terms of background, Sarah had far more background to marry a royal than Kate Middleton.

Sophie is middle-class, but married to the third son of the Sovereign. There is a difference between marrying a prince of the UK and marrying the heir to the throne. William will be held to a higher standard than Harry or his cousins will when it's time to get married.

i was under the impression that aristocrats were people that had titles that were inherited? is this incorrect?

 

[Elspeth]

Well, what he said was that Diana had never had a boyfriend; I assume the implication was that she was a virgin. I doubt he knew the details of her life to any great extent, but perhaps he was assuming that she wouldn't have slept with someone who wasn't a long-term steady boyfriend and she'd never had one of those.

 

[branchg]

i was under the impression that aristocrats were people that had titles that were inherited? is this incorrect?

In the strictest sense, an aristocrat is either a male peer or a female with a courtesy title styled after their father's peerage (i.e. Lady Diana Spencer). Sarah does not meet the definition of either, however, her mother was descended in the female line of the Montgau-Douglas-Scott ducal family in addition to being a lineal descendant of Charles II. This certainly gave Sarah sufficient standing in her bloodline to marry a prince of the blood royal in today's world.

During the reign of George V, Sarah probably would not have met the criteria for a royal marriage in Queen Mary's eyes.

 

[Elspeth]

It has been well-documented in the many books written about Diana and the Spencers that Diana had several relationships with various aristocrats in her circle before her marriage to Prince Charles. Two were quoted as saying she was an experienced lover and very passionate.

And some books stated that her only male friends were platonic even though they wished the relationship had been closer. I think this is something we don't necessarily need to be making definitive statements about.

 

[Emily]

Branchg you are making alot of assertions on this thread that are opinion but stated as fact. How do you know Diana was not a virgin? Granted the uncle of Diana's in question did commit suicide and had a history of some troubles -- but does that mean he necessarily doesn't know something? What is your source -- name of books and authors? How do you know William has to marry an aristocrat? How do you know Camilla would have been a suitable bride way back before marriage to Andrew Parker-Bowles? There is certainly another body of opinion that completely disagrees with your assertions. I think you ought to check your sources and let us know. As a scholar, I resent the way you present your ideas as though you know, and you have been incorrect on a couple of things I do know about. As an example, Sarah's mother was not descended from the Montagu-Douglas-Scott a.k.a. Dukes of Buccleuch and Queensbury line. She was descended from Viscounts in Ireland. Sarah's father's mother, Lady Elmhirst, was from the line you mention. To keep this forum reputable and not a source of careless assertions, please back up your sources or frame them more carefully as opinion.

 

[Duchess]

In the strictest sense, an aristocrat is either a male peer or a female with a courtesy title styled after their father's peerage (i.e. Lady Diana Spencer). Sarah does not meet the definition of either, however, her mother was descended in the female line of the Montgau-Douglas-Scott ducal family in addition to being a lineal descendant of Charles II. This certainly gave Sarah sufficient standing in her bloodline to marry a prince of the blood royal in today's world.

During the reign of George V, Sarah probably would not have met the criteria for a royal marriage in Queen Mary's eyes.

ahhh ok. thanks for clarifying.

 

[iowabelle]

During the reign of George V, Sarah probably would not have met the criteria for a royal marriage in Queen Mary's eyes.

By that criteria, neither Diana nor Sarah would have met their standard since both sets of parents were divorced.

 

[branchg]

Sarah's mother was not descended from the Montagu-Douglas-Scott a.k.a. Dukes of Buccleuch and Queensbury line. She was descended from Viscounts in Ireland. Sarah's father's mother, Lady Elmhirst, was from the line you mention. To keep this forum reputable and not a source of careless assertions, please back up your sources or frame them more carefully as opinion.

I suggest you read my posting more carefully. I never said Sarah's mother was descended from the Montagu-Douglas-Scott line (which she is through the female line). I said Sarah's grandmother was as a cousin of Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott aka HRH Princess Alice, Dowager Duchess of Gloucester.

Regarding the rest of my assertions, there is a huge body of material and books which will confirm my view that Diana was not a virgin at the time of her marriage and had relationships with other men prior to meeting Prince Charles and beginning their courtship.

If you have something to add to correct anything, I certainly would welcome reading it.

 

[branchg]

By that criteria, neither Diana nor Sarah would have met their standard since both sets of parents were divorced.

You are right about that!

 

[sara1981]

By that criteria, neither Diana nor Sarah would have met their standard since both sets of parents were divorced.

i have to agree about that! when Diana staying at Clarence House till marriages to Prince Charles in 1981 and Sarah Ferguson staying at Clarence House till marriages to Prince Andrew in 1986 but Princess Diana's parents divorces also because her mom had another man who is affairs and her dad won custody of 4 children.

Sara Boyce

 

[branchg]

I stand corrected on Sarah's background. Emily is correct as she is descended through her father as a Montagu-Douglas-Scott, not her mother's side. I apologize.

From Wikpedia:

Sarah is a daughter of Major Ronald Ivor Ferguson and his first wife, Susan Mary Wright. Though widely referred to as a commoner, which in the strictest sense is true, the Duchess comes from an aristocratic background. She is a great-great-granddaughter of the 6th Duke of Buccleuch, a great-granddaughter of the 8th Viscount Powerscourt, a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, and a stepgranddaughter of Air Marshal Sir Thomas Elmhirst. Through her paternal grandmother, Lady Elmhirst (née Marian Montagu-Douglas-Scott), she also is a distant cousin of the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, an aunt of Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[ysbel]

This is the first that I have heard that Diana wasn't a virgin when she married. Didn't she have to take a virginity test?

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I don't believe it. Prince Charles was to consumed with Camilla prior to the wedding. Prince Charles married Diana because he needed a virgin. I don't think Charles cared enough for Diana before the marriage, to have been intamate with her. He fell in love with her late in marriage didn't he?

 

[lashinka2002]

I looks to me like Kate's just trying to play her cards right. If she's patient enough and doesn't slip up there's a possibility that she may become Williams wife.

Kate would become more than just William's wife....she would become a princess of the UK with precedence directly after the Queen and Camilla.

If this actually happens, she would be the first woman in British history to become Princess of Wales and then Queen Consort who is not from a royal or aristocratic family.

What about Elizabeth Woodville, I thought she was a commoner, not from an aristocratic family.

 

[branchg]

I looks to me like Kate's just trying to play her cards right. If she's patient enough and doesn't slip up there's a possibility that she may become Williams wife.

What about Elizabeth Woodville, I thought she was a commoner, not from an aristocratic family.

I thought Elizabeth Woodville was the daughter of an Earl and descended through a ducal house on her mother's side?

 

[Emily]

branchg: "It has been well-documented in the many books written about Diana and the Spencers that Diana had several relationships with various aristocrats in her circle before her marriage to Prince Charles. Two were quoted as saying she was an experienced lover and very passionate.

In addition, several biographers, quoting members of the royal household at the time, have stated Charles and Diana were quietly lovers at Sandringham, Buckingham Palace and Balmoral prior to the wedding. I highly doubt Diana was a virgin."

Again, I think the way you phrase things is ambiguous I'm not sure what you are saying. Having relationships with various aristocrats, being an experienced lover, being passionate -- what does that mean? Does it necessarily mean she lost her virginity? Is that what you are implying? It's one thing to imply she lost her virginity as the result of relationships with other aristocrats prior to her meeting with Prince Charles. It is quite another to imply she lost her virginity with PC during their pre-wedding days. Your lack of clarity is unfair to board members who are taking your opinion as fact because they may not have the background to challenge it. As stated earlier, I wish you would make clear and factual statements or else clearly state that these are your opinions.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

Diana once said that she always felt that she had to keep herself "tighty". So she waited until she was married. I am not going to believe a bunch of people who just want to sell a book and make money off of degrading Princess Diana.

 

[branchg]

Again, I think the way you phrase things is ambiguous I'm not sure what you are saying. Having relationships with various aristocrats, being an experienced lover, being passionate -- what does that mean? Does it necessarily mean she lost her virginity? Is that what you are implying? It's one thing to imply she lost her virginity as the result of relationships with other aristocrats prior to her meeting with Prince Charles. It is quite another to imply she lost her virginity with PC during their pre-wedding days. Your lack of clarity is unfair to board members who are taking your opinion as fact because they may not have the background to challenge it. As stated earlier, I wish you would make clear and factual statements or else clearly state that these are your opinions.

My dear, you are starting to sound like a professor grading a schoolpaper. It is quite clear I am citing what has been written about Diana in various books regarding the claim of virginity. I am not writing a thesis on the history of the monarchy since 1980, so I would suggest you take yourself a little less seriously.