Questions about Royalty

[marywebgirl]

I'm not much of a royal-watcher but on this spectacularly slow afternoon I decided to check the Wills and Harry threads. It looks like it's no secret that they're having sex with their respective girlfriends, and there's a chance that either could marry said girlfriends. So do they not do the virgin checks anymore? I'm sorry to ask such a crass question.

[kelly9480]

It took Charles ten years to find a virgin. It would take William 100, so they must not do the checks anymore. I think, officially anyways, the checks were to insure the woman could have kids, and they would almost certainly still check to ensure that she could breed, but they'd have to ignore the "she ain't pure" part.

[Auroranorth]

I think it was more, is there anything embarassing in her past that's going to come back to bite us? The late PoW had no past, whereas Camilla...

[niddlemiddle]

I was just watching a show on TV about the crown jewels and the they touched on the abdication of the throne by Edward VIII to be with Wallis Simpson. It was interesting that the reason he couldn't become King was because she was divorced.
My question to all of you..
Do the British monarchy marry from the US or other nations? I know historically, they married princes and princesses from other nations but I found it interesting that he abdicated based on her being divorced... not that she wasn't royal.

[chonies]

niddlemiddle, there are people on this board far more knowledgeable than I am on the Wallis thing, but there were apparently a lot of murky, extenuating circumstances behind the abdication. I also have a hunch that "divorced" was also code for "not a virgin." Also, I think she'd been divorced twice already, which was probably more scandalous than necessary. Additionally, there might have been questions about her fertility...

But I'm not sure what's rumored (like the testicular feminization rumor) and what I'm pulling out of thin air because I'm very likely mixing my facts up.

[happypenguin]

niddlemiddle said:

Do the British monarchy marry from the US or other nations? I know historically, they married princes and princesses from other nations but I found it interesting that he abdicated based on her being divorced... not that she wasn't royal.

The Queen Mother wasn't royal either, but that wasn't perceived as a problem. I don't think since Henry VIII that any Monarch has legally* married a commoner so to speak, but I suppose in the past marraige was the basis of political alliances and that isn't as important since the 20th century. The minor royals have married people who aren't royalty since Edward VII's time I think, and even before that if I'm not mistaken.

Like Chonies say's I imagine it was the twice divorced bit that was really scandalous. In those days people didn't really divorce that commonly and I imagine they wanted someone without a past; like the Queen Mother.

*I say legally because of the cases of George IV and William IV, who were said to have married their mistresses, but it wasn't legally recognised.

[kelly9480]

In the UK, you're either the sovereign, a peer (the holder of a noble title, but not the holder's family members), or a commoner, so the royals marry a lot of commoners. Under the UK constitution, most members of the royal family are actually commoners (meaning they aren't the sovereign (EIIR), and they don't hold peerage titles (like the Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, etc). Marrying a commoner isn't a problem.

Marrying an American has been claimed to not be a problem. In the 1930s, Americans were seen as glamorous.

Marrying a twice-divorced person, when the Anglican church didn't recognize divorce until the 1990s, was obviously an issue when the royals are supposed to adhere to the Anglican faith. Edward couldn't marry Wallis and get his religion to accept that marriage. Church leaders refused to accept her.

[Deleted]

Wasn't there also something about Edward having Nazi sympathies? TPTB wanted him out and they used 2x divorced Wallis as an excuse. A legitimate excuse, for sure, because that was the rule back then. But there were more reasons for his abdicating than just Wallis.

[Auroranorth]

He wasn't much use as king- he left state papers lying around where anyone could see them. He also wanted to party a lot.

According to this, there was a lot more than sympathies.

[chonies]

Not to claim it as gospel truth, but the Wikipedia article on the abdication says that although the Nazi "sympathies" were evident, that wasn't as much of a force behind the abdication as it generally is believed to be. Of course, it's easier to blame the brash, crass, American quasi-mistress rather than slander a king who, you know, elopes to Von Trapp-era Austria, because that would tarnish the whole monarchy.