Looking critically

[amabel]

So if he does not have the heir, it's out of his  hands and perhaps his daughters can be wed to other aristos with estates.

what good is that?? 

[sandy]

I see no problem with it. 

[amabel]

I see no problem with it. 

It has nothing to do with producing an heir.. What good it is to  a peer if he has daughters who marry aristocrats with estates? Their children cannot be heirs....

[TLLK]

No they can't with the way the inheritance laws are currently written with rare exceptions. So marrying off a daughter to ensure the survival of the estate is not a good idea IMHO.

[sandy]

If the woman falls in love with another aristo with a title and they decide to marry that's fine. But I am not talking arranged marriages here.

[oak_and_cedar]

I don't think so, but it was her choice to leave Johnny Spencer

It was her choice but she was under difficult circumstances. She was young when she married and had lots of pressure. I don't think that earl Spencer was fair in his treatment towards her. IMO.

Still she should not have engaged in an affair, and could have just gone for a separation for a while.

[amabel]

If the woman falls in love with another aristo with a title and they decide to marry that's fine. But I am not talking arranged marriages here.

what does "that's fine" mean?  It is of no use to a peer without a male heir.. if his daughter marries someone with a title..
Double post auto-merged: September 18, 2019, 07:12:41 PM

It was her choice but she was under difficult circumstances. She was young when she married and had lots of pressure. I don't think that earl Spencer was fair in his treatment towards her. IMO.

Still she should not have engaged in an affair, and could have just gone for a separation for a while.

She didn't want a separation.  She was fed up with JOhnny and wanted out of the marriage. And she fell in love with Peter Shand Kydd and wanted to be with him..
Double post auto-merged: September 18, 2019, 07:13:14 PM

No they can't with the way the inheritance laws are currently written with rare exceptions. So marrying off a daughter to ensure the survival of the estate is not a good idea IMHO.

It would not do anything for the estate at all!! 
Double post auto-merged: September 18, 2019, 07:32:41 PM

No they can't with the way the inheritance laws are currently written with rare exceptions. So marrying off a daughter to ensure the survival of the estate is not a good idea IMHO.

TLLK I was just thinking that Julian Fellows managed to figure out a way past thtat little problem in Downton, where Mary was marrying the Heir presumptive to the title...

[sandy]

This was all hypothetical what I said.

[LouisFerdinand]

She was about 18 when she met Spencer who was serious about another woman. Frances and John met and it was love at first sight. Frances' mother Lady Fermoy had ambitions and encouraged the match.

Who was the other lady John Spencer was serious about?

[TLLK]

Raine.

[Curryong]

John had been seeing Lady Anne Coke, the daughter of the Duke of Leicester, for some time. Friends expected she and Johnny to become engaged, but he met Frances, who was then seventeen and that was that. There's some evidence that Ruth steered her daughter in his direction. Her other daughter Mary had married an aristocrat. Frances had first seen Johnny when she was 14 and he had visited her school.

[amabel]

Raine.

no that was after his divorce from Frances SK.  He was seeing Lady Anne Coke as Curryog says.  Johnny was really blindsided by Frances' leaving him. I think he did not realise that the marriage had failed and was over.. He wasn't a very bright guy and not good with feelings...
Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2019, 06:34:21 AM

This was all hypothetical what I said.

I don't really understand it.  Anyone with a peerage and estate needed a male heir.. otherwise the estate (usualy) and titles certainly would pass to a more distant relative and was usually considered something of a disaster for the peer...
Daughters were not able to provide heirs.. so a duaghter marrying into another titled family would not solve the problem

[sandy]

What is not to understand? A young aristo marrying into another aristo family, they grow up in the same circles. That's all I am going to say about this. I made my point.

[TLLK]

I don't really understand it.  Anyone with a peerage and estate needed a male heir.. otherwise the estate (usualy) and titles certainly would pass to a more distant relative and was usually considered something of a disaster for the peer...
Daughters were not able to provide heirs.. so a duaghter marrying into another titled family would not solve the problem

Agreed. While it was not uncommon for the daughters of the aristocracy to marry in their circle, it wouldn't help their family if there was not a living male heir. This was pretty much Downton Abbey's storyline for the first season. :happy:

[amabel]

What is not to understand? A young aristo marrying into another aristo family, they grow up in the same circles. That's all I am going to say about this. I made my point.

I can't understand what your point is. 
Double post auto-merged: September 19, 2019, 02:00:07 PM

Agreed. While it was not uncommon for the daughters of the aristocracy to marry in their circle, it wouldn't help their family if there was not a living male heir. This was pretty much Downton Abbey's storyline for the first season. :happy:

Fellowes did  manage to work out a solution for the Crawleys.. but I doubt if it happened in real life...

[oak_and_cedar]

Slightly off topic (perhaps more than slighty!) but who do you guys think was the love of Spencers life? Frances or Raine?

[amabel]

Slightly off topic (perhaps more than slighty!) but who do you guys think was the love of Spencers life? Frances or Raine?

No idea. I think he fell deeply in love with Raine and depended on her very much.. and Frances walked out on him, surprised him by doing so... so whatever feelings he had for her, were probably crushed by her wlaking out

[oak_and_cedar]

No idea. I think he fell deeply in love with Raine and depended on her very much.. and Frances walked out on him, surprised him by doing so... so whatever feelings he had for her, were probably crushed by her wlaking out

I don't know about that. He was willing to forgive Frances and overlook it. It wasn't until after she wanted a divorce that he became angry IMO.

[amabel]

I don't know about that. He was willing to forgive Frances and overlook it. It wasn't until after she wanted a divorce that he became angry IMO.

well when she walked out she wanted a divorce, didn't she? He was not a smart guy and I don't think he realised that she was so bored and fed up with him and that she had fallen so madly in love with Peter SK... when it did hit him and he understood she was gone, I think he was indeed angry.. and in due course he fell for Raine

[Curryong]

That's right amabel. Except that at the time Frances walked out you couldn't just stamp your foot and get a divorce just because you wanted one.

As I pointed out in a previous post no fault divorce did not come in Britain until the end of the 1960s. Unless the spouse cooperated in the collaborative frauds that were often used to gain divorces in those days (detective/ hotel chamber maid finds a husband in bedroom with a hired stranger) the party wanting a divorce was often stymied. Johnny was in no mood to cooperate and was not a drunkard, insane or unfaithful or cruel, nor had he deserted her, the reasons for a divorce petition being allowed to be heard in those days.

And in fact Frances ran a severe risk of being named as the guilty party in Peter's divorce, by his wife. Which is precisely what happened. Guilty parties in divorce actions were not favoured by courts in those days and it's my belief that played as large a role in Frances not being awarded custody of her children as Ruth's testimony on Johnny's behalf. Frances tried to fight back with allegations of cruelty but it was her behaviour that ultimately caused the court to rule in Johnny's favour in the custody battle that separated the children from their mother.

[amabel]

well yes I've always been dubious about Frances' counter peitition of Cruelty on JOhnny's part. I think he was a bully and a foot stamper...but he was not violent..
I think he did not realise how much Frances had gone off him and was bewildered when she left, takng the children.. and wanting a divorce to be with Peter full time. I think Johnny would have overlooked a fling but to find that his wife no longer loved him, was leaving him for another man and trying to take his children... really hurt him and he got angry and uncooperative...
ANd he became something of a recluse for a few years after the divorce.. I think he did fall deeply for Raine.. and while she is not my favourite person, she was devoted ot him in her way...

[dianab]

it was very wrong of frances wanting take the the kids away to scotland just because she wanted to be with peter. the fact she was leaving because another man who also happened to be married definitely was a very important factor in custody issues. along with moving to scotland. she caused her own problems during the divorce, putting a man above her kids needs

[sandy]

I think she should have had more access to her children no matter what the ruling. I think she was remote with Diana because she had not had the access to her that she should have had. She had a hands off attitude towards her in the run up to the wedding.

I did read that Ruth Fermoy did not want the children to lose the proximity to the royal family who were nearby at Sandringham. Diana had gotten invited to Andrew's and Edward's birthday parties. I do think Fermoy had ambitions for her granddaughters to marry into the royal family.

[Curryong]

Another of the great blanks left in Diana bios as far as I'm concerned is the relationship Diana had with her maternal relatives.

Frances had two siblings, the much married Mary, who had children, Diana's cousins, and a brother, Edmund, Baron Fermoy, who suicided in 1984, shortly before Harry was born. Diana was portrayed as sobbing quietly at his funeral, and of course he came out with the embarrassing thing about her never having had lovers before her marriage. Edmund also had a family as well.

But, apart from Mary's reported remark at around the time of the Wales divorce that she thought that the age gap had played a huge part in the marriage not working, we know nothing of these siblings' views on Charles, on Diana as a person before and after wedlock, or anything else. Did Diana encourage her sons to see their aunt and their much older second cousins on the maternal side when she was alive?  Did she herself keep in contact? We don't know that either, though I wouldn't be surprised if she did see Edmund's family, at least.

[amabel]

I think she should have had more access to her children no matter what the ruling. I think she was remote with Diana because she had not had the access to her that she should have had. She had a hands off attitude towards her in the run up to the wedding.

I did read that Ruth Fermoy did not want the children to lose the proximity to the royal family who were nearby at Sandringham. Diana had gotten invited to Andrew's and Edward's birthday parties. I do think Fermoy had ambitions for her granddaughters to marry into the royal family.

She had perfectly normal accsess to her children.. Johnny got custody but she saw the children regularly...they spent weekends with her in London.. It was later on when she moved to Scotland that it wasn't so easy probably to visit.  even then she had normal access.  DIana saw her regularly and loved her but she could not forgive her for walking out - that's moderately obvious
Double post auto-merged: September 21, 2019, 07:47:27 AM

Another of the great blanks left in Diana bios as far as I'm concerned is the relationship Diana had with her maternal relatives.

Frances had two siblings, the much married Mary, who had children, Diana's cousins, and a brother, Edmund, Baron Fermoy, who suicided in 1984, shortly before Harry was born. Diana was portrayed as sobbing quietly at his funeral, and of course he came out with the embarrassing thing about her never having had lovers before her marriage. Edmund also had a family as well.

But, apart from Mary's reported remark at around the time of the Wales divorce that she thought that the age gap had played a huge part in the marriage not working, we know nothing of these siblings' views on Charles, on Diana as a person before and after wedlock, or anything else. Did Diana encourage her sons to see their aunt and their much older second cousins on the maternal side when she was alive?  Did she herself keep in contact? We don't know that either, though I wouldn't be surprised if she did see Edmund's family, at least.

Possibly she wasn't that close to them as an adult..  She had increasing tension with her mother as she grew older.. what with Frances' on and off behaviour, her drinking, their rows about men and so on.  So possibly Diana just wasn't that close to her aunt and uncle on that side.. and if the cousins were a lot older than Will and Harry, they weren't close either.
Double post auto-merged: September 21, 2019, 09:34:52 AM

it was very wrong of frances wanting take the the kids away to scotland just because she wanted to be with peter. the fact she was leaving because another man who also happened to be married definitely was a very important factor in custody issues. along with moving to scotland. she caused her own problems during the divorce, putting a man above her kids needs

She didn't move to Scotland, she moved to London