April 29, 2011 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #596541
In one of the Royal Wedding threads, OfCourse posted the following:
This couple seems to be uniquely mature, graceful and sensitive. It will be interesting to see if their marriage will stand the test of time. Lots of divorces in the Royal Family in recent years! Will theirs be different? I think possibly.
I don’t know that there have been “a lot” of divorces in the Royal Family in recent years. Yes, it is true that three of the Queen’s four children divorced their first spouses in the 1990s.
On the other hand, there are plenty of British Royal marriages that have stood the test of time. The prime example being the marriage of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, who have been married since 1947. Likewise the Duke of Gloucester (the Queen’s cousin) has been married for nearly forty years, the Duke and Duchess of Kent are celebrating their fiftieth anniversary this year and Prince Michael has been married for well over thirty years. Princess Alexandra’s marriage lasted over forty years until her husband’s death, Even the most scandal-ridden marriage of the Century, that of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, lasted until his death in 1972.
Of course, the temptation is to dismiss those marriages because they are, frankly speaking, old marriages belonging to another generation. It is true that those marriages are all old, but you also must consider that, by definition, there are no “new” 30, 40, 50 or 60 year marriages.
As such, how valid is it to state cite the “recent” divorces? If one is going to cite the divorces, then one must also bring in the successful marriages. But if you’re going to disregard them as being irrelevant because they are old, then you’re left with a severe bias, making the statement meaningless.*
* Of course I don’t think that this is what OfCourse had in mind.May 1, 2011 4:55 am at 4:55 am #763350eclipseMember
I was enthralled with Lady Di as a young Canadian….I always thought she was/looked Jewish.May 1, 2011 5:49 am at 5:49 am #763351
Wolf, I think what people mean is the general feeling that royal marriages shouldn’t end in divorce as much as they have been.
You pointed out that three of the Queen’s four children divorced their first spouses in the 1990s. That is enough to give the impression of ‘a lot of recent divorces’
True, statistically, their divorce rate may be less than the average, but that’s not under discussion.
In any case, of the last, say, 5 royal (first) marriages, how many ended in divorce?May 1, 2011 6:20 am at 6:20 am #763352
I believe that Prince Charles married Diana under false pretenses as he had a mistress on the side and only intended to use her to bare him children. He never loved her and purposely chose a commoner without an academic background mistakenly thinking that she would be foolish and naive and NOT catch on to his game but be a meek little mouse without an opinion of her own. Little did he know that she was a quality woman who the country truly loved. He was the fool and she was true royalty in the end. As far as his brother is concerned, well we can assume that he was no brighter than his brother and they both proved to be an embarrassment to their mother the queen.
As far as Prince William is concerned. so far he has proven to be his mother’s child, and has done nothing to embarrass either his mother nor his grandmother and we truly don’t expect him to. He has chosen well. Kate is a sophisticated and intelligent woman who comes from a very proper home. They make a regal couple who are true and honest with each other. There is no reason to expect that they should not follow in the footsteps of the other royals in previous generations.May 1, 2011 6:33 am at 6:33 am #763353
Diana was not a commoner prior to her marriage. And she was philandering subsequent to her marriage. Nothing he did can excuse her unfaithfulness. Her actions, under the law, were a capital offense under the Treason Act 1351 and she was legally subject to be executed for treason.May 1, 2011 6:47 am at 6:47 am #763354
BTW Kate originally caught William’s attention in college by prancing down a runway in a very promiscuous outfit.May 1, 2011 7:23 am at 7:23 am #763355
Aries: Diana wasn’t a commoner, google it.
I don’t think your synonpsis of Charles and Diana is quite accurate.May 1, 2011 9:08 am at 9:08 am #763356Shticky GuyParticipant
Wolf you seen to be very interested and knowledgeable in the British Royal’s history on this and other threads. Any connection to the UK or is it just something you enjoy following.May 1, 2011 9:12 am at 9:12 am #763357
You pointed out that three of the Queen’s four children divorced their first spouses in the 1990s. That is enough to give the impression of ‘a lot of recent divorces’
I agree that it’s enough to give the impression. But impressions are not always reality. You tend to remember the divorces (since they get a lot of publicity) but ignore the people who quietly stay married.
In addition, people tend to focus on the recent and ignore the old. But the problem is that by ignoring the old marriages, you are ignoring the very success stories that are necessary to make the comparison.
In any case, of the last, say, 5 royal (first) marriages, how many ended in divorce?
I have compiled the last twenty marriages in the Royal Family* — going back to 1947. Of the twenty, fifteen are still married to their first spouses (and one more was widowed after a forty year marriage). Of the last five marriages (excluding the last week’s), all five are still married to their first spouses.
The marriages (and their current statuses) are:
HRH Princess (later Queen) Elizabeth to Philip Mountabatten, Duke of Edinburgh (1947) — still married
HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent to Katherine Worsely (1961) — still married
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent to Sir Angus Ogilvy (1963) — widowed 2004.
HRH Prince Richard, (later Duke) of Gloucester to Bridgette van Duers (1972) — still married
HRH Princess Anne to Mark Phillips (1972) — divorced 1992
HRH Prince Michael of Kent to Marie-Christine vonReibnetz (1978) — still married
HRH Charles, Prince of Wales to Diana Spencer (1981) — divorced 1996
HRH Andrew, Duke of York to Sarah Ferguson (1986) — divorced 1996
James Ogilvy (son of HRH Princess Alexandra) to Julia Rawlinson (1988) — still married
George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (son of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) to Sylvana Tomasseli (1988) — still married
Marina Ogilvy (daughter of HRH Princess Alexandra) to Paul Mowatt (1990) — divorced 1997
Lady Helen Windsor (daughter of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) to Timothy Taylor (1992) — still married
HRH Edward, Earl of Wessex to Sophie Rhys Jones (1999) — still married
Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (son of HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester) to Claire Booth (2002) — still married
Lady Davina Windsor (daughter of HRH Prince Richard) to Gary Lewis (2004) — still married
Lord Nicholas Windsor (son of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) to Paola Doimi de Lupis Frankopan (2006) — still married
Lady Rose Windsor (daughter of HRH Prince Richard) to Peter Gilman (2008) — still married
Peter Phillips (son of HRH Princess Anne) to Autumn Kelly (2008) — still married
Lord Fredrick Windsor (son of HRH Prince Michael) to Sophie Winkleman (2009) — still married
HRH William, Duke of Cambridge to Kate Middleton (2011) — still married 🙂
* Note that I limited it to currently living members of the royal family (those titled HRH or HM) and their children. I don’t have time to research the marriages of deceased members of the Royal Family. Feel free to do so and report back on them if you really want the data.May 1, 2011 1:50 pm at 1:50 pm #763358
thanks for the list, Wolf.
Yes, you’re right, the statistics support you.May 1, 2011 2:06 pm at 2:06 pm #763359
The British Royals have quite a sordid marital history. Heck, the entire reason the Church of England was created, and Britain abandoned Catholicism, was so that one man (King Henry) could divorce his wife for the girl-of-the-moment (who didn’t last herself too long before he beheaded her and went on to another 4 wives.)May 1, 2011 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #763360
I think I’ll marry kate’s sister.May 1, 2011 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #763361dunnoMember
Good luck popa. She seems to have her eyes on Prince Harry.May 1, 2011 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #763362
No, I read that Prince Harry is involved with someone else.
Besides, they hold of ??? ????? ?????.
Now, Prince Charles might go for her. But I’m sure she’d rather a yeshiva guy.May 1, 2011 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #763363double standardMember
Poppa and Pippa sounds nice.May 1, 2011 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #763364
The British Royals have quite a sordid marital history. Heck, the entire reason the Church of England was created, and Britain abandoned Catholicism, was so that one man (King Henry) could divorce his wife for the girl-of-the-moment (who didn’t last herself too long before he beheaded her and went on to another 4 wives.)
That’s not the sole reason for the creation of the Church of England. Things had been boiling to a head for quite a while beforehand, and the break would have happened anyway even if Henry never decided to divorce his first wife. To say that the entire reason for the CoE was so that Henry could divorce his wife is a *gross* oversimplification.
The WolfMay 1, 2011 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #763365
Clairvoyant, Diana’s parents were divorced and she was a pre-school teacher, who did not pursue a higher education in university. All this was spoken about during the coverage of THIS royal wedding. She did not come from an environment like Kate, nor did she come from wealth. Although we all loved her and admired her. She became the peoples’ princess and everyone loved her more than the prince himself.
Furthermore, any indiscretions she had was only in retaliations to the public humiliations her own husband caused her, having his own mistress come to events that would place her in close proximity to his wife. These will well known and well documented.May 1, 2011 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm #763366
aries: There is simply no excusing Diana’s unfaithfulness. Such activity is never justifiable. She should have been executed for her crimes, as per the law. She lucked out that the 3 year statue of limitations, per the Treason Act 1695, expired before her infidelity was discovered. In any event, G-d gave her was justice failed to.May 1, 2011 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm #763367
Furthermore, any indiscretions she had was only in retaliations to the public humiliations her own husband caused her, having his own mistress come to events that would place her in close proximity to his wife.
True, but still not a valid excuse.
The WolfMay 1, 2011 5:44 pm at 5:44 pm #763368
Do you think they’ll make me an earl?
I mean, it would be weird for the King’s brother in law to be a commoner.May 1, 2011 5:46 pm at 5:46 pm #763369always hereParticipant
me thinks a Sir Joseph doppleganger replieth hereinMay 1, 2011 5:47 pm at 5:47 pm #763370
And therefore she opted out of the marriage.May 1, 2011 5:51 pm at 5:51 pm #763371
She lucked out that the 3 year statue of limitations, per the Treason Act 1695, expired before her infidelity was discovered.
Oh, come on. She wasn’t going to be tried (and certainly not executed) even if she openly admitted it. She didn’t “luck out” because of the statute of limitations.
The WolfMay 1, 2011 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #763372
I mean, it would be weird for the King’s brother in law to be a commoner.
That will be the exact situation when Charles becomes King. Princess Anne’s first husband refused a title upon marriage. Her current husband, Vice Admiral Timothy Laurence, also holds no title and is a commoner.
The WolfMay 1, 2011 5:57 pm at 5:57 pm #763373
I’m not sure if the penalty is automatically death, or if the judge could have sentenced Diana to a lesser penalty (i.e. life imprisonment), but why do you assume she would not have been prosecuted had Diana’s crime been discovered within the statue of limitations? Suggestions were made that the one she sinned with, James Hewitt, ought to be so prosecuted. But it was pointed out that it was already past the 3 years SoL. (Diana was dead by then.)May 1, 2011 6:01 pm at 6:01 pm #763374
always here: seems soMay 1, 2011 6:18 pm at 6:18 pm #763375
but why do you assume she would not have been prosecuted had Diana’s crime been discovered within the statue of limitations?
A. I have not been able to (yet) find an original copy of the Treason Act of 1695 to verify that this actually is a capital crime.
B. Even if it was a capital crime, it is no longer so and has not been so since at least 1948, the year the Treason Act of 1948 was passed which gutted most of the Treason Act of 1695.
C. Even if the law was still on the books, not every law is prosecuted every time. People are generally not tried (and certainly not executed) for adultery anymore. Whether that’s right or wrong is not the issue, the reality is the issue and the reality is that it just isn’t done anymore in Western countries.
D. The choice to bring her to trial would not have been the Queen’s, Charles’ or anyone else in the Royal Family. It would have been up to the legal authorities (or perhaps Parliament). They would not have done so.
E. Even if they might have prosecuted some people, they would not have prosecuted Diana. As it was the Royal Family was going through a horrible time in the 1990s. To execute Diana could well have spelled the end of the monarchy. Imagine the grief that was displayed at her death and change that to rage at her being executed. The people would have revolted and it would have been a revolution.
In short, there is NO WAY Diana would have been tried an executed… and you know it.
The WolfMay 1, 2011 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #763376
It is the Treason Act 1351 that makes it a capital crime; and that was on the books and the prescribed penalty at the time of Diana’s indiscretion. The Treason Act 1695 limits prosecution of 1351 to within 3 years of committal.May 1, 2011 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm #763377
Here is the official language of the legislation:May 1, 2011 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm #763378
It is the Treason Act 1351 that makes it a capital crime; and that was on the books and the prescribed penalty at the time of Diana’s indiscretion. The Treason Act 1695 limits prosecution of 1351 to within 3 years of committal.
Interesting… you may, indeed, be correct on that.
Nonetheless, she would not have been tried or executed for the other reasons I mentioned (see points C, D and E above).
The WolfMay 1, 2011 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm #763379
Now I understand better “shelo asani isha”: Diana should be executed and Charles is off free…
hence the title of this thread “Sampling Bias”May 1, 2011 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #763380
Now I understand better “shelo asani isha”
James Hewitt, Diana’s “friend”, was equally liable for the death penalty.May 1, 2011 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #763381
That does not respond to the point being made.May 1, 2011 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #763382Josh31Participant
“Diana should be executed and Charles is off free…”
No matter what Charles did, the legitimacy of William would not be affected.
Legitimacy of a future Head of State is a big issue.
Here we have the whole “birther” movement, and Obama had to release his full birth certificate to try to quell them.
Our own King David had to deal with legitimacy issues because of Ruth and Moab. (Moavi v’lo moavit)May 1, 2011 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #763383mddMember
Am Yisroel Chai,Aries and others, Halocha is Halocha. There is an issur of Eshes Ish, but there is no issur of Ish shel Isha.May 1, 2011 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #763384
I don’t think the British monarchy follows halacha.May 1, 2011 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #763385mddMember
But that should be your prism for viewing the world.May 1, 2011 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #763386
Rabbenu Gershom apparently had difficulty with the original prism, too…May 1, 2011 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #763387canineMember
Rabbeinu Gershom had no problem with the punishment for it.May 1, 2011 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm #763388
So, again, Diana should be executed while Charles gets off free…while Hewitt should be punished…is there anyone else here having a problem with this?May 1, 2011 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #763389
Am yisroel chai:
You seem as if that result bothers you.
It actually is the torah opinion, and even Rabeinu Gershom never suggested that there was somehow any issur of a man being mezaneh on his wife.
I don’t think we are expected always to understand every torah hashkafa fully, but it is useful to notice when our morality is not in touch with the torah.
I don’t really know why this result bothers you. It doesn’t bother me a whit. When a wife strays, it is far worse than when a husband does, since the relationship the wife has is supposed to be an exclusive relationship.May 1, 2011 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm #763390
And to add to popa_bar_abba, the fact is in the discussed case here under both Torah Law, and in English Law, both she (Diana) and he (James Hewitt) receive the same capital punishment.May 1, 2011 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #763391
But not Charles & CamillaMay 1, 2011 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #763392anon for thisParticipant
I’ve read Treason Act 1351 and can’t see where it prescribes the death penalty for Diana, only for James Hewitt. If someone else could read it and tell me what I’m missing, I’d appreciate it.
mdd, are you saying that James Hewitt and Lady Diana were deserving of death simply because Lady Diana was married to another man when their relationship took place (and not specifically because she was married to the heir)? If so, would not Charles himself and Camilla Parker-Bowles (who was then married to Andrew Parker Bowles) be equally liable for their relationship? Prince Charles himself admitted adultery, and it’s widely known that their relationship lasted decades, preceding and continuing throughout her marriage to Andrew.May 1, 2011 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #763393
Actually Charles and Camilla would also be liable for misa under Torah Law, as they sinned while Camilla was married at the time to someone else. The point again being the status of the woman (i.e. eishes ish) determines the sin for both parties.
Although Charles infidelity was not a capital offense under English Law (for either parties.) Diana’s was.May 1, 2011 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #763394
“When a wife strays, it is far worse than when a husband does, since the relationship the wife has is supposed to be an exclusive relationship.”
the inference being that the relationship the husband has is not supposed to be exclusive?May 1, 2011 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #763395
anon for this: If it is consensual, the Treason Act holds the Prince’s wife equally liable.May 1, 2011 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #763396Josh31Participant
The Treason Act has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with damaging the “Malchus” or Kingship.May 1, 2011 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm #763397anon for thisParticipant
Clairvoyant, where does Treason Act 1351 prescribe the death penalty to Diana for her infidelity? Please quote the exact wording, since I’m not seeing it.May 1, 2011 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #763398
This is mentioned in the Treason Act 1351 Wikipedia article, as well as in a 1994 New York Times story, amongst other places.
Anne Boelyn and Kathryn Howard were convicted, and executed, under the Treason Act 1351.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.