Q: Why do so many royals divorce? A: Because they can
Much as I love the Queen, it was Lady Bracknell who sprang to mind when I heard the news of yet another royal divorce this week. ‘ To lose one daughterin- law, your Majesty, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.’
Yes, I know. Neither Autumn Phillips ( splitting from HM’S grandson, Peter) nor Serena Armstrong- Jones (parting from her nephew, David) are daughtersin-law. But you get my drift.
The two separations must be body blows to the Queen, who has not had the easiest few months, what with all the harry and Meghan hoo-ha, not to mention the ongoing saga over Prince Andrew.
But I can’t imagine it has been as much of a surprise. It is reasonable to assume that she had some inkling of what was to come.
Not just because David Linley, now the Earl of Snowdon following the death of his father in 2017, is a close member of the inner royal circle. But because divorces seem to tear through the Royal Family like Storm Dennis.
Extraordinary, isn’t it, that, despite the fact the Queen and Prince Philip have been married for 72 years, three of their children’s marriages broke down?
ONLY Prince Edward, married to Sophie Wessex, has never divorced. To put that in perspective, around 42 per cent of marriages end in divorce nationally. In the case of the Queen’s children, it’s 75 per cent. And now the curse seems to be afflicting the next generation.
For an institution which is supposed to provide the nation with a sense of stability and decorum, it’s not ideal. So why do so many royals divorce?
For me, the answer is simple: it’s because they can. The royals — and the aristocracy in general — have both the money and the social status to do what they want, while many ordinary couples don’t.
There is a reason divorce is on the decline among the middle class — the same reason they don’t tend to have more than two children. It’s not because everyone is deliriously happy — although, of course, plenty are. It’s because many who are not have to stick together in the current climate of austerity. Such couples can’t afford to split their assets, and they certainly can’t afford the lawyers’ fees. And so they live out their lives in an atmosphere of low-level dissatisfaction, trapped in unfulfilling relationships.
For the royals — and their relatives — this is simply not an issue. There are always enough houses to go around, and the accumulated wealth ensures there’s no shortage of cash for either party to pursue an independent lifestyle.
In the case of Serena and David, they have to choose between homes in Kensington, Gloucester and Provence — and her father, landowner the Earl of harrington, is said to be worth up to £250 million.
It’s also, as ever, a question of class. A lot of couples stay together for fear of becoming ostracised or lonely, for fear of what their friends and colleagues might think.
Being a royal insulates you from such things. It doesn’t matter what you do, someone’s always willing to befriend you for your title. And when push comes to shove, the Establishment always closes ranks to protect itself.
Everyone deserves to be happy, be they prince or pauper. But when it comes to love and life in general, it’s one rule for the royals — and another for the rest of us.
JUST when you think the Labour leadership contest couldn’t get more absurd, Dawn Butler tells us babies are born without biological sex. Yes, dear, and Venezuela is a successful socialist economy . . .