[ SECRET POST #5097 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5097 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #730.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's more a thing of its time and culture, IMO. Having a discreet affair (after you'd presented your partner with an heir and a spare) wasn't seen as quite so bad, because a lot of marriages at the upper levels weren't done for love. There was this idea that getting married to someone who was a proper spouse was something you did because you had a responsibility to do so, like getting a job that paid the bills. Then once your obligations were fulfilled, you could have your fun on the side.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but the tabloid press really turned that on its head! Which I find very interesting, because it's always been an open secret that the royals in general are absolutely not the moral paragons and leaders that they present as, but it only has any consequences every few hundred years! (See: Charles I, James II, the Prince Regent...)

[tree_and_leaf]

Charles I was a completely crap leader, don't get me wrong, but he was a good husband, a loving father, and a man of principles. Stupid principles which he was completely incapable of compromising even when it was obviously a good idea to, but principles none the less. (Do you mean Charles II? Although I don't think he was actually trying to make people think he was a paragon of virtue...)

[(Anonymous)]

That's fine if both parties agree. But it was pretty clear that Di didn't agree to sharing her husband.

Plus a thing of it's time? It was the 1980s not the 1780s.

[(Anonymous)]

Right? It's almost like the British monarchy operates on an antiquated level or something...

[(Anonymous)]

Wives were supposed to look the other way, and have affairs of their own once they'd produced an heir. I'm not saying that was a great way to handle things, but it was a longstanding tradition - marital fidelity was not the norm in marriages like that. No doubt the royals expected Diana to be aware of that and to fall in line, as so many other wives had done.

And if you think such practices and expectations were only common in the 1870s and not in more recent times... you don't really know much about English history at all, do you?

[(Anonymous)]

It's a bad system. Any human being with a working autonomous mind and the capacity for critical thought in the modern era should be able to see it's a bad system. So it's no excuse at all that it was traditionally the way it was done.

[(Anonymous)]

1980s was not the modern era. Social attitudes about gender have changed a lot in the last forty years, and things still aren't equal.

Besides, nobody's claiming it was a sensible way to do things. Just like pay inequality, lack of paid maternity leave.... None of that is sensible, but not changeable by us as individuals just because we know it's fucking stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but none of that means that the royal family did nothing wrong and Diana should simply have expected it and it's her own fault for getting uppity ideas about being a human person and not merely a bearer of children

which is the way people talk about it

[(Anonymous)]

DA - God, won't ANYONE ever think of the feelings of poor, perfect, innocent, angelic Diana in all this?!

Do I condone extramarital affairs? No, I do not. That goes for ALL parties involved. Do I condone 40-year-long Virgin vs. Whore debates? No, I do not.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course CPB isn't in the wrong either.

But you've had people here the last couple weeks acting like it was reasonable for the royal family to expect Diana to be a broodmare.

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. That was your looking-for-a-fight reading of it, or a very willful refusal to understand what people are saying. Hint: people were saying that's what the royal family expected of Diana, and that may have been partly how they viewed her role in their family. The fine nuance is escaping you.

[(Anonymous)]

... but nobody here is saying Charles and the royal family were blameless, and here is where you're having this discussion. So who are you arguing with, exactly?

[(Anonymous)]

History is full of people with working, autonomous minds and capacity for critical thought, and the 80s were not "the modern era". Speaking now in the modern era, nobody in this thread has suggested it's a good system.