The Royal Family #43

[Lammington]

I would again note the mental impact of significant medical issues. Having a spouse home with you during recovery isn't just about physical assistance - lord knows they have staff for that.
Things like assistance with bathing if someone is struggling with movement are less upsetting if it's a spouse than a stranger or staff member. Emotional support, however, is also hugely important. If someone has just gone through a major surgery and is dealing with the flow-on effects of recovery and possibly adjusting to a new lifestyle as a result, do you really think sitting home alone is going to be great for the psyche?

I get that William & Kate are hardly the pinnacle of what we view as royal productivity. But many seem to either have little knowledge of what recovery looks like in more than a sense of physical tissues, or have completely removed a human identity from royal folks.

 

[SarcasmSpecialist]

I had surgery in 2022. It was technically a routine operation for gallbladder removal, but instead of the regular 45 minutes, it took about three hours as it was all stuck to various other bits. I came out the same day, but it took three months to get fully fit again. I'd have loved a little longer in hospital: I know how stressed my partner was over looking after me.

 

[EllenDeGenerate]

It also lasts a bit longer

The worst part of the Prostate checkup is embarrassment for the patient typically. They don't experience pain during the examination, just perhaps discomfort. A parallel cannot be drawn between this and childbirth.

 

[LizSmithqwerty]

Just because he knows the devastation doesn’t mean he will not do it!! I also heard stories.. which make me believe that it is very possible that they are together… The aristocracy work very differently to us mere commoners.. It’s set up to work like this.. Married people having affairs within a set group.. Princess Ann and Parker-Bowles..Diana, was not going to put up with Camilla but Kate would.. Like Diana was the worlds sweetheart look what Charles ended up with.. Yes a man can be attracted to two women , it’s like having your cake and eating it!

You’ve put it better than I did. We are in a totally different world to them and I believe what my friend has told me because of who she knows. Kate is accepting of it.

 

[unwanted.opinions]

It also lasts a bit longer

Yeah it’s a no from me

 

[moldwarp]

Spoiler: Off topic

Eamon Holmes pissed me off in that interview saying "women don't know they're born" because we don't know what it is to have to go for prostate exams. Excuse me, we have to go and have a doctor shove their finger in our vagina and feel around for abnormalities - it's the exact same bloody thing. He's an elderly married man, how could he possibly not know this?

He said whaaattttt?? Eamon. My dude. Try pushing a 10.1lb human out through your foo-foo over an eight hour period with weak-ass pain relief and then, rather than crying and going to bed for a month and resting like men would probably do, commence feeding it with juice generated by your own body every three hours including at night time. Then come to me and talk about how we don't know that we're born. Idiot.

 

[Great_Kate]

I don’t think we can compare the „world“ the aristocracy build for themselves in terms of acceptable behaviour in the 1980s to what the current generation deems acceptable. Just like we don’t accept the same standards as the generation before us.
I really feel like some people forget that those people are still humans? They are not completely detached from society and social development. Do we really think a royal female would be fine with being publicly known for having her husband cheat or even maintaining an ongoing affair? The publicity might be even more humiliating as the fact. Just because Charles did things are certain way doesn’t mean his sons believe they can/should to. Will the example of his parents prohibit Wiliam from cheating? Probably not. But I also don’t think he strides around thinking he is the pinnacle of moral high ground while being a cheat.
IF Kate accepted that W and Rose are an item and has no problem with it, I don’t see why anyone else should have. Same if she had a problem with it. That’s between her and her husband.

 

[Boring Monday]

I don’t think we can compare the „world“ the aristocracy build for themselves in terms of acceptable behaviour in the 1980s to what the current generation deems acceptable. Just like we don’t accept the same standards as the generation before us.
I really feel like some people forget that those people are still humans? They are not completely detached from society and social development. Do we really think a royal female would be fine with being publicly known for having her husband cheat or even maintaining an ongoing affair? The publicity might be even more humiliating as the fact. Just because Charles did things are certain way doesn’t mean his sons believe they can/should to. Will the example of his parents prohibit Wiliam from cheating? Probably not. But I also don’t think he strides around thinking he is the pinnacle of moral high ground while being a cheat.
IF Kate accepted that W and Rose are an item and has no problem with it, I don’t see why anyone else should have. Same if she had a problem with it. That’s between her and her husband.

Well really you only have to look around some of the current foreign royal houses to see the answer to that one.

 

[unwanted.opinions]

The worst part of the Prostate checkup is embarrassment for the patient typically. They don't experience pain during the examination, just perhaps discomfort. A parallel cannot be drawn between this and childbirth.

Which is why men shouldn’t be such condescending dicks and say women have it easy as they don’t have a prostate exam. As I’m pretty sure stupid comments like that will anger women and put men off getting a prostate exam.

I don’t think we can compare the „world“ the aristocracy build for themselves in terms of acceptable behaviour in the 1980s to what the current generation deems acceptable. Just like we don’t accept the same standards as the generation before us.
I really feel like some people forget that those people are still humans? They are not completely detached from society and social development. Do we really think a royal female would be fine with being publicly known for having her husband cheat or even maintaining an ongoing affair? The publicity might be even more humiliating as the fact. Just because Charles did things are certain way doesn’t mean his sons believe they can/should to. Will the example of his parents prohibit Wiliam from cheating? Probably not. But I also don’t think he strides around thinking he is the pinnacle of moral high ground while being a cheat.
IF Kate accepted that W and Rose are an item and has no problem with it, I don’t see why anyone else should have. Same if she had a problem with it. That’s between her and her husband.

Tbf to Charles things could have been so different if it’s true about his dad not allowing him to marry Camilla first time around. Both him and Diana knew they were in a loveless relationship and cheated. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Onetwofour]

I think cheating is not something specific to the aristocracy. 1 in 5 people in the UK cheated while in a relationship. I just think it's easier to go on with infidelity if you have a lot of money, multiple houses, luxury lifestyle etc. than living in 1 bed council flat. Plus, a divorce might be very expensive and come with a huge downgrade in term of lifestyle. Assets are better protected for the next generation if there is no divorce.

The notion of cheating is an aristocrate thing comes from the times where the bourgeoisie class was asserting itself as a dominant class. Bourgeois liked to see themselves as hard workers (as they didn't acquire wealth through land ownership like the aristocrates but through successful ventures) and therefore being more morale than the frivolous aristocrates just living off from their rents. They modelled new ways of living to the rest of the population, presenting themselves as more rightous and so on to distinguish themselves from the aristocrats. It coincides with the apparition of the notion of "marriage of love" when for centuries marriage was more seen as a contract between two families to establish a new household where love had no place. Jane Austen's books are a good example of the questioning around marriage that started at that time.

But it doesn't mean that in reality individuals from the bourgeoisie were necessarily less cheating on their partners than the aristocratic peers. The big difference is that it became a more frowned-uppon behaviour so more shrouded in secrecy. Plus, in the bourgeois ideal, the wife was supposed to offer to her husband where he would content and happy after a hard day of work outside. A unfaithful husband was seen as a sign that the cheated woman wasn't a good wife as he preferred to flee their household for the comfort of another one. On the other hand a unfaithful wife was seen as someone frivolous, similar to an aristocratic woman, which was seen in a very negative light.

My point is that cheating is not linked to a social class but that the perception around it might be influenced by it. With industrialisation the bourgeois ideal took over the aristocratic ideal in our society, as the bourgeoisie amassed wealth and power even though in today's society, someone with a bourgeois background - or upper-middle class might well be mostly living off a trust fund or being a nepo baby, so in term of lifestyle not that different from an aristocrate from the old times while a nowadays aristocrate might be hustling around trying to keep the money flowing for the upkeep of old mansions. Infidelity is still more likely to be tolerated among the wealthy - aristocrates and upper middle class alike than among the middle and working classes because it doesn't carry the same stigma. "Do as I say not as I do" could be well the motto of the bourgeoisie in term of cheating.

 

[ItsDatCuw]

Spoiler: Off topic

Eamon Holmes pissed me off in that interview saying "women don't know they're born" because we don't know what it is to have to go for prostate exams. Excuse me, we have to go and have a doctor shove their finger in our vagina and feel around for abnormalities - it's the exact same bloody thing. He's an elderly married man, how could he possibly not know this?

Excuse me Éamonn, have you even heard of (monthly!) menstruation, let alone endometriosis??

 

[Boring Monday]

I think cheating is not something specific to the aristocracy. 1 in 5 people in the UK cheated while in a relationship. I just think it's easier to go on with infidelity if you have a lot of money, multiple houses, luxury lifestyle etc. than living in 1 bed council flat. Plus, a divorce might be very expensive and come with a huge downgrade in term of lifestyle. Assets are better protected for the next generation if there is no divorce.

The notion of cheating is an aristocrate thing comes from the times where the bourgeoisie class was asserting itself as a dominant class. Bourgeois liked to see themselves as hard workers (as they didn't acquire wealth through land ownership like the aristocrates but through successful ventures) and therefore being more morale than the frivolous aristocrates just living off from their rents. They modelled new ways of living to the rest of the population, presenting themselves as more rightous and so on to distinguish themselves from the aristocrats. It coincides with the apparition of the notion of "marriage of love" when for centuries marriage was more seen as a contract between two families to establish a new household where love had no place. Jane Austen's books are a good example of the questioning around marriage that started at that time.

But it doesn't mean that in reality individuals from the bourgeoisie were necessarily less cheating on their partners than the aristocratic peers. The big difference is that it became a more frowned-uppon behaviour so more shrouded in secrecy. Plus, in the bourgeois ideal, the wife was supposed to offer to her husband where he would content and happy after a hard day of work outside. A unfaithful husband was seen as a sign that the cheated woman wasn't a good wife as he preferred to flee their household for the comfort of another one. On the other hand a unfaithful wife was seen as someone frivolous, similar to an aristocratic woman, which was seen in a very negative light.

My point is that cheating is not linked to a social class but that the perception around it might be influenced by it. With industrialisation the bourgeois ideal took over the aristocratic ideal in our society, as the bourgeoisie amassed wealth and power even though in today's society, someone with a bourgeois background - or upper-middle class might well be mostly living off a trust fund or being a nepo baby, so in term of lifestyle not that different from an aristocrate from the old times while a nowadays aristocrate might be hustling around trying to keep the money flowing for the upkeep of old mansions. Infidelity is still more likely to be tolerated among the wealthy - aristocrates and upper middle class alike than among the middle and working classes because it doesn't carry the same stigma. "Do as I say not as I do" could be well the motto of the bourgeoisie in term of cheating.

historically, the thing for monarchs and the ruling class is that it Wasn’t about marrying for love, it was about marrying to increase either power, wealth or land (for preference all 3). If some sort of affection came from that, it was Billy bonus, but it wasn’t the primary objective. You don’t have to go that far back in the history of the RF to see that if there is an acceptable bride with an acceptable dowry and the intended groom should unfortunately pass away before the wedding that the heir inherits the bride to be as well, with Geroge and Mary. Produce the heir, a spare and a daughter or 2 to marry off for dynastic purposes, shake hands on a job well done and toddle off on separate lives.

Somewhere around George Vi and the Queen Mum perception changed about marrying for love (within certain prescribed acceptable parameters), which was ramped up with Philip and the Queen and went into overdrive with Charles and Diana with the perception being that if they marry for love, why should there need to be affairs … when as everybody really knows life isn’t as simple as that.

 

[thegirlscout]

Tbf to Charles things could have been so different if it’s true about his dad not allowing him to marry Camilla first time around.

Camilla didn’t want to marry him back then.

 

[unwanted.opinions]

Camilla didn’t want to marry him back then.

Being too young to remember it the only thing I’ve really heard/read is Prince Phillip said no and while Charles and Diana wasn’t an arranged marriage it was it was sort of pushed. And looking from the outside in neither were particularly happy with each other. But the only ones that knows what really went on are the two in the actual relationship and it’s easy for others to speculate about it.

 

[Boring Monday]

Camilla didn’t want to marry him back then.

To be fair to the upper class gels of the 1970’s … none of them did.

 

[thegirlscout]

Being too young to remember it the only thing I’ve really heard/read is Prince Phillip said no and while Charles and Diana wasn’t an arranged marriage it was it was sort of pushed. And looking from the outside in neither were particularly happy with each other. But the only ones that knows what really went on are the two in the actual relationship and it’s easy for others to speculate about it.

I think history has been somewhat revised to make it seem like they were star crossed lovers with evil parents who refused to allow them to marry and all this heartache with Diana would have been saved if Charles was able to marry his one true love.
However the reality was, like others have said, no upper class ladies really wanted to marry Charles and all the pressure that came with the role and he was of an age where he really needed to be married and have the heir and spare sorted out. Diana came along and she was young and naive. I believe Philip gave Charles an ultimation (is that the right spelling???) to either propose or stop stringing Diana along and I guess Charles felt with his age and responsibilities he best sort it all out quickly.

 

[peradetlic]

I don’t think we can compare the „world“ the aristocracy build for themselves in terms of acceptable behaviour in the 1980s to what the current generation deems acceptable. Just like we don’t accept the same standards as the generation before us.
I really feel like some people forget that those people are still humans? They are not completely detached from society and social development. Do we really think a royal female would be fine with being publicly known for having her husband cheat or even maintaining an ongoing affair? The publicity might be even more humiliating as the fact. Just because Charles did things are certain way doesn’t mean his sons believe they can/should to. Will the example of his parents prohibit Wiliam from cheating? Probably not. But I also don’t think he strides around thinking he is the pinnacle of moral high ground while being a cheat.
IF Kate accepted that W and Rose are an item and has no problem with it, I don’t see why anyone else should have. Same if she had a problem with it. That’s between her and her husband.

You're quite right. If Kate knows and it's ok with her, we can only comment from our personal point of value (would we or wouldn't tolerate it).

But to be equal, I would like to know who is Kate's flirt? Why is she always put in passive position? I don't think she's as passive as projected in public.

 

[Justhereforthedrama]

Harry and Meghan at the premier of the Bob Marley movie last night with the Prime Minister of Jamaica.

Is it not odd for royalty to make unscheduled meetings with heads of state? In fact isnt it usually criticised?

(also, her face looks different, maybe jaw?)

 

[Nopatience]

Harry and Meghan at the premier of the Bob Marley movie last night with the Prime Minister of Jamaica.

Is it not odd for royalty to make unscheduled meetings with heads of state? In fact isnt it usually criticised?

(also, her face looks different, maybe jaw?)
View attachment 2710883

Eyebrows too

 

[thegirlscout]

Is it not odd for royalty to make unscheduled meetings with heads of state? In fact isnt it usually criticised?

They aren’t working Royals, otherwise yes it would be odd. However I think this is being criticised by some sections of the media today
---

Harry and Meghan at the premier of the Bob Marley movie last night with the Prime Minister of Jamaica.

Is it not odd for royalty to make unscheduled meetings with heads of state? In fact isnt it usually criticised?

(also, her face looks different, maybe jaw?)
View attachment 2710883

I think it’s a combination of Boston, darker eyebrows and weight loss. She’s looking thinner than usual.