Prince Philip's 'affairs'
Sacha
biography of the Duke of Edinburgh in which he alleges several affairs that
the prince is supposed to have had. The article about the book says that he
enjoyed a 'highly charged' relationship with a beautiful Duchess 25 years
his junior. Sacha Duchess of Abercorn when interviewed said that she and
Philip had a very passionate friendship but that they never went to bed.
Viscountess Bangor (better known as royal writer Sarah Bradford) says
however, that they did. but Sacha Abercorn says that she believes he has
never had a full blown affair and She says "I did not go to bed with him.
It's complicated and at the same time it's quite simple. He needs a
playmate and someone to share his intellectual pursuits." When asked if she
thought Philip had gone to bed with any of his other 'playmates', the 58
year old Duchess said "I doubt it very much . No I'm sure not. But he's a
human being. Who knows? I don't. Unless you are in the room with a lighted
candle, who knows?"
So on the one hand Sarah Bradford says "The Duke of Edinburgh has had
affairs - yes, full-blown affairs and more than one. He has affairs and the
Queen accepts it. I think she thinks that's how men are. Philip and Sacha
Abercorn certainly had an affair. Without a doubt." and Sacha Abercorn says
emphatically that they did not.
Philip has been interviewed by Brandreth many times in the past and has used
him as a conduit to express his anger or frustrations over varying issues.
He is quoted by Brandreth as giving an outright denial of infidelity saying
"How could I? I've had a detective in my company, night and day, since
1947.
Penny Romsey whose friendship with Philip has attracted the most gossip is
described by Brandreth as 'his playmate, not is mistress.'
Lady Romsey's mother in law, Countess Mountbatten says in the book "Philip
is a man who enjoys the company of attractive intelligent younger women. He
has special friends, like Penny. But I am absolutely certain he has never
been unfaithful to the Queen."
Christopher Wilson, a royal biographer, says that the Abercorn business is
odd, when looked at dispassionately. Philip had known her since childhood
and she was part of the RF's inner circle - he remarks that to choose
somebody so close and so much younger borders on the tasteless. But
according to Brandreth, Philip has been accused of worse - he was said to
have had a homosexual 'fling' with Valery Giscard d'Estaing (former
President of France) and to have fathered 'a raft of illegitimate children'.
There is no raft but Wilson says that there may be one child and he wonders
if Brandreth has faced up to the question of Max Boisot's parentage. Before
her marriage, Helene Cordet was someone closely linked to Philip in the
press. And before her marriage she had an illegitimate son called Max
Boisot (Boisot is the surname of her husband) who was sent to Gordonstoun
and for whom Philip paid the fees. But in 1989 Max, living in China, took
the unprecedented step of issuing a statement denying that the prince was
his father.
Brandreth also tackles the old tale that Lord Carnarvon was Prince Andrew's
father, describing this as a rumour like poison gas. BUT says Brandreth,
having sifted the evidence, I think we can take it as read that the Queen
has been faithful all her married life." Wilson regards the very idea as
being out of the question and says that he knows the person who invented
that story and who was appalled when it took wing.
Wilson remarks that we shall have to wait to see if the Queen will
appreciate her marriage being forensically analysed by Brandreth "who seems
to have been given unprecedented access to friends, relations and former
courtiers, we shall have to wait to find out."
Wilson concludes: "Either way, isn't it astonishing that in the
much-chronicled life of a man of 83 - an age when others are pruning their
roses and enjoying a nightly cup of Horlicks - that there swirls about
Prince Philip sufficient mystery and intrigue to keep us gasping for the
next exhilarating episode."
--
Sacha
Jean Sue
sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 9/6/04 5:42 AM:
> Wilson remarks that we shall have to wait to see if the Queen will
> appreciate her marriage being forensically analysed by Brandreth "who seems
> to have been given unprecedented access to friends, relations and former
> courtiers, we shall have to wait to find out."
I bet she is of the age where she hardly cares as it hardly matters.
+=+=+=+
jeansue
"What you have become is the price you paid to get what you used to
want"--Mignon McLaughlin.
Tee
news:BD6205B7.262B5%jea...@bookschlepper.com...
> in article BD61EFA4.2EFF%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk, Sacha at
> sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 9/6/04 5:42 AM:
>
> > Wilson remarks that we shall have to wait to see if the Queen will
> > appreciate her marriage being forensically analysed by Brandreth "who
seems
> > to have been given unprecedented access to friends, relations and former
> > courtiers, we shall have to wait to find out."
>
>
> I bet she is of the age where she hardly cares as it hardly matters.
Unless she has no affection for her husband, no pride and/or no privacy
issues I'm fairly certain she *will* care. Who wants their private affairs
aired out? Specifically, who wants their spouse's possible extra-marital
affairs known to all? If he didn't cheat then it'd just be embarrasing. If
he did cheat then this would be embarassing and painful. Some women are
able to move on and get over things like that with time but I don't believe
that anyone is able to truly forgive & forget. Particularly not when its
rehashed and you have to face it again. Btw, wasn't it put about around
here before that its treasonous to cheat on your spouse when your spouse is
a sovereign?
--
Tara
Sacha
<crappol...@netscape.net> wrote:
As to the treason thing, yes, it is treason but it's hardly likely to be
invoked.
The article also said that Diana's father told her "remember, he is a
sailor. They return with the tide."
Some women of her generation and upbringing did most genuinely believe that
men were programmed to be unfaithful and that providing it didn't destroy
the family set up, it was to be overlooked, however painful. After all in
strictly practical terms, we are animals. The male of the species can
impregnate thousands of women a year - technically speaking. The female of
the species can give birth only once a year, so survival of the species
could have meant what is now known as 'putting it about a bit'.
Even in my own age group I know women who regret kicking out their errant
husbands, especially if it was over one incident. They feel they would have
preferred to keep the family intact because of the fallout on their
children.
And some studies back that up - they have shown that women are more often
the instigators of divorce and that later they regret it. I believe it has
also been shown that men are unlikely to leave their wives unless there is
another woman to go to, whereas women are more likely to cast off into the
unknown, as it were, alone.
Where this book is concerned and the Queen's views on it, it's necessary to
remember that it's an *authorised* biography, so that the author had access
to papers, people, stories, rumours etc. that e.g. Kitty Kelly would never
have. I doubt Philip would have okayed his 'passionate friends' talking to
Brandreth without talking first to his wife, don't you?
--
Sacha
Q
"Sacha" <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BD6263A8.2F7A%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
The thing is that it may have been "one incident" but it was probably really
"the first incident." Married men who have affairs tend to regard it as
some kind of a hobby.
>They feel they would have
> preferred to keep the family intact because of the fallout on their
> children.
Perhaps they thought they'd meet somebody else and make a fresh start -- but
that didn't happen.
Staying in a marriage with a philandering husband also results in fallout
where children are concerned.
> And some studies back that up - they have shown that women are more often
> the instigators of divorce and that later they regret it. I believe it
has
> also been shown that men are unlikely to leave their wives unless there is
> another woman to go to, whereas women are more likely to cast off into the
> unknown, as it were, alone.
Sometimes being alone is preferable to being married to somebody who lies
all the time, or who leaves one vulnerable to disease and ridicule.
> Where this book is concerned and the Queen's views on it, it's necessary
to
> remember that it's an *authorised* biography, so that the author had
access
> to papers, people, stories, rumours etc. that e.g. Kitty Kelly would never
> have. I doubt Philip would have okayed his 'passionate friends' talking
to
> Brandreth without talking first to his wife, don't you?
It's hard to know. Philip has a history of being insensitive, and at this
point, he has little to lose by offending his wife. -- Q
> --
>
> Sacha
>
Jean Sue
sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 9/6/04 1:57 PM:
> I believe it has
> also been shown that men are unlikely to leave their wives unless there is
> another woman to go to, whereas women are more likely to cast off into the
> unknown, as it were, alone.
Well, one has to have someone to do the laundry <LOL>
=+=+=+=+
jeansue
I look forward to growing old disgracefully.
Andy.III
>here before that its treasonous to cheat on your spouse when your spouse is
>a sovereign?
>
>--
>Tara
Only if your spouse is a MALE monarch (i.e. husbands can cheat but wives can't
as that could endanger the bloodline)
Andy.III
--
SHOW YOUR VOTE 2004
IF you support Kerry, please drive during the DAY with your headlights ON.
IF you support Bush, please drive at NIGHT with your headlights OFF.
Thank you for your participation.
YaffaDina2
why other responses don't show to whom the poster is responding. So,
apologies, not meant to insult anybody.
... snipped to various points ...
> The article also said that Diana's father told her "remember, he is a
>> sailor. They return with the tide."
I never heard that! Very funny! :)
>Some women of her generation and upbringing did most genuinely believe
>that
>> men were programmed to be unfaithful and that providing it didn't destroy
>> the family set up, it was to be overlooked, however painful.
Indeed!
>
>The thing is that it may have been "one incident" but it was probably really
>"the first incident." Married men who have affairs tend to regard it as
>some kind of a hobby.
Perhaps some of the 'incidents' were more serious than others, *that* would be
hard to ignore for any generation of women. There are, too, men who regard
(other) women as their 'right' -- that's where I'd place Philip.
......snipped>
Sometimes being alone is preferable to being married to somebody who lies
>all the time, or who leaves one vulnerable to disease and ridicule.
I saw a part of a tv show some time last year where a bunch of middle aged
women who were separated or divorced, were confident in their decision never to
marry again.
...
...>It's hard to know. Philip has a history of being insensitive, and at this
>point, he has little to lose by offending his wife. -- Q
You think so? I can just see it: Elizabeth putting his cases by the door.
Where would he go? To live with Charles, hee hee No, I think he'd move in
with Anne. Which brings up a question, does Philip have a home of his own?
yD
...
Kelly
> yD
>
No, he's completely dependent on his wife for everything.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Sacha
<Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
And some really do have a one time experience and get past it. Some.
>
>> They feel they would have
>> preferred to keep the family intact because of the fallout on their
>> children.
>
> Perhaps they thought they'd meet somebody else and make a fresh start -- but
> that didn't happen.
>
> Staying in a marriage with a philandering husband also results in fallout
> where children are concerned.
Most children would prefer to have their parents together. I think they
expect the grown ups to sort out their problems so that they can get on with
being the children. Watching a family I'm close to going through this right
now, I have some sympathy with that. For the adults, the split has been a
better thing than the marriage but the children are finding it horribly hard
to cope with and they are 17 and 12 - not babies, just old enough to be
aware of new lives, new changes, new partners, new upsets.
>
>> And some studies back that up - they have shown that women are more often
>> the instigators of divorce and that later they regret it. I believe it
> has
>> also been shown that men are unlikely to leave their wives unless there is
>> another woman to go to, whereas women are more likely to cast off into the
>> unknown, as it were, alone.
>
> Sometimes being alone is preferable to being married to somebody who lies
> all the time, or who leaves one vulnerable to disease and ridicule.
Most certainly but not all women always thought so. Or think so.
>
>> Where this book is concerned and the Queen's views on it, it's necessary
> to
>> remember that it's an *authorised* biography, so that the author had
> access
>> to papers, people, stories, rumours etc. that e.g. Kitty Kelly would never
>> have. I doubt Philip would have okayed his 'passionate friends' talking
> to
>> Brandreth without talking first to his wife, don't you?
>
> It's hard to know. Philip has a history of being insensitive, and at this
> point, he has little to lose by offending his wife. -- Q
>
His entire life has been devoted to toeing the royal line and supporting his
wife. Why, now, would he try to hurt her by a betrayal. It's
inconceivable, frankly. Had he wanted to do this, he would have distanced
himself from her or even left her, many years ago.
And you say that he is insensitive but Sarah Abercorn who could at least be
said to know him well remarks that he is an extremely sensitive man.
--
Sacha
Sacha
"YaffaDina2" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote:
So was I. Until I met my now husband.
> ...
> ...>It's hard to know. Philip has a history of being insensitive, and at this
>> point, he has little to lose by offending his wife. -- Q
>
> You think so? I can just see it: Elizabeth putting his cases by the door.
> Where would he go? To live with Charles, hee hee No, I think he'd move in
> with Anne. Which brings up a question, does Philip have a home of his own?
> yD
>
No, I don't think so. The Duchy owns Highgrove and a trust owns Mey and the
Queen owns Birkhall. I'm not sure if the Queen doesn't own the other houses
her children occupy or occupied, so it is possible, only possible, that she
is the only one of the 'A' team who actually owns any property. I *think*
Prince Andrew owns Southyork for which a buyer cannot, apparently, be found
and Pss Anne may own Gatcombe but I'm not sure about either. Both were
bought by the Queen and may remain hers.
--
Sacha
Tee
news:20040906153834...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > Btw, wasn't it put about around
> >here before that its treasonous to cheat on your spouse when your spouse
is
> >a sovereign?
> >
> >--
> >Tara
>
> Only if your spouse is a MALE monarch (i.e. husbands can cheat but wives
can't
> as that could endanger the bloodline)
Well I think it should change and should've done so long ago. Husbands can
kill their wives with sexually transmitted diseases. Which is worse? A
possible illegitimate heir to the throne or a Queen who died of AIDS?
Discounting HIV and AIDS, some VDs can significantly impact a person's
health & wellbeing. From a technical standpoint, I'd say that a VD
transmitted to a Queen, by her cheating husband, is no different than the
husband doing her bodily harm. Hence its all treasonous.
--
Tara
Jean Sue
sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 9/6/04 5:53 PM:
> On 6/9/04 9:41 pm, in article 20040906164109...@mb-m25.aol.com,
> "YaffaDina2" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I saw a part of a tv show some time last year where a bunch of middle aged
>> women who were separated or divorced, were confident in their decision never
>> to
>> marry again.
>
> So was I. Until I met my now husband.
Not sure if the references above are correct; someone didn't attribute a
paste.
Anyway,
the good thing about never wanting to marry again is that you don't accept
anyone who isn't near perfect. Too many women (and men) just want a mate or
a marriage.
+=+=+=+
Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
Jean Sue
yaffa...@aol.com wrote on 9/6/04 4:41 PM:
> You think so? I can just see it: Elizabeth putting his cases by the door.
> Where would he go? To live with Charles, hee hee No, I think he'd move in
> with Anne. Which brings up a question, does Philip have a home of his own?
She could throw his things out the windows of buck House. That'd make tv
news <LOL>
My guess is Philip would have no trouble finding someone to take him in.
+=+=+=+
jeansue
Give approval, love and cooking with reckless abandon.
Tee
>
> My guess is Philip would have no trouble finding someone to take him in.
That is literally beyond me. Why would anyone, outside of a committed
do-gooder, take in a crotchety, outspoken, insensitive, tactless-at-times
old man who has been deemed unworthy by the Queen? The same applies to the
idea of ladies and wives of the aristocracy having affairs with him. There
was a time when you didn't touch what belonged to the monarch. To sleep
with your Queen's husband (anyone's husband really but c'mon, the Queen of
England?!) is low. Even with consent of the Queen, I'd have major issues
with the idea and even then it'd seem more sleazy(sp).
--
Tara
Q
I think it sets a bad example for children when the marriage begins to
resemble a shark pool, which is what often happens. IMO, children need the
lesson that it's not a good idea to remain in unhappy situations if there
are alternatives. That would apply to professional situations as well as
domestic ones.
>
> >
> >> And some studies back that up - they have shown that women are more
often
> >> the instigators of divorce and that later they regret it. I believe it
> > has
> >> also been shown that men are unlikely to leave their wives unless there
is
> >> another woman to go to, whereas women are more likely to cast off into
the
> >> unknown, as it were, alone.
> >
> > Sometimes being alone is preferable to being married to somebody who
lies
> > all the time, or who leaves one vulnerable to disease and ridicule.
>
> Most certainly but not all women always thought so. Or think so.
I suppose it depends on why these women married these men in the first
place.
> >
> >> Where this book is concerned and the Queen's views on it, it's
necessary
> > to
> >> remember that it's an *authorised* biography, so that the author had
> > access
> >> to papers, people, stories, rumours etc. that e.g. Kitty Kelly would
never
> >> have. I doubt Philip would have okayed his 'passionate friends'
talking
> > to
> >> Brandreth without talking first to his wife, don't you?
> >
> > It's hard to know. Philip has a history of being insensitive, and at
this
> > point, he has little to lose by offending his wife. -- Q
> >
>
> His entire life has been devoted to toeing the royal line and supporting
his
> wife. Why, now, would he try to hurt her by a betrayal.
I don't know very much about Philip, and therefore, I have no idea.
But authorizing one's close friends to discuss one's extra-marital love
affairs for publication is IMO extremely peculiar behavior.
The Queen might not go to pieces over it, but surely it cannot make her
particularly happy to see their personal life on all the front pages. If
she is apathetic, I'd find that equally strange.
>It's
> inconceivable, frankly. Had he wanted to do this, he would have distanced
> himself from her or even left her, many years ago.
> And you say that he is insensitive but Sarah Abercorn who could at least
be
> said to know him well remarks that he is an extremely sensitive man.
I really don't know what Prince Philip is like in his personal life. Many
of his public utterances have shown an emotional clumsiness that has been
widely commented upon. -- Q
> --
>
> Sacha
>
Volcaran
>Date: 07/09/2004 03:46 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <413d2044$0$152$45be...@newscene.com>
I haven't read the book but the reviews published here state that allegations
of extra-martial affairs are looked at but that it concludes that there weren't
any. It appears therefore that "authorisation" of discussion of extra-martital
love affairs was not the order of the day unless you are classing a close
personal friendship as an extra-martial love affair (in which case probably
99.9% of all married persons are guilty). Of course it is always possible that
knowing the book was going to be written anyway, PP considered that it was time
that the record was set straight.
Sacha
Sue" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote:
> in article BD629B05.3003%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk, Sacha at
> sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 9/6/04 5:53 PM:
>
>> On 6/9/04 9:41 pm, in article 20040906164109...@mb-m25.aol.com,
>> "YaffaDina2" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I saw a part of a tv show some time last year where a bunch of middle aged
>>> women who were separated or divorced, were confident in their decision never
>>> to
>>> marry again.
>>
>> So was I. Until I met my now husband.
>
> Not sure if the references above are correct; someone didn't attribute a
> paste.
>
> Anyway,
>
> the good thing about never wanting to marry again is that you don't accept
> anyone who isn't near perfect. Too many women (and men) just want a mate or
> a marriage.
>
>
"Husband as accessory" sort of thing. I agree - it's pointless to me to be
with someone just for the sake of there *being* 'someone'.
--
Sacha
Sacha
<crappol...@netscape.net> wrote:
The point surely is that he has always and unswervingly denied infidelity
and so have all his lady friends. There is therefore absolutely NO proof of
infidelity.
--
Sacha
Sacha
<Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
He's said to be a very sensitive man and I've read that before this book. I
believe Diana said she was amazed at how kind he had been to her.
But I don't think this book could possibly have been written without the
Queen and the Duke's approbation and permission given to their friends to
talk.
The reason behind the book is supposed to be that before he dies, he wants
all the rumours and counter-rumours that have always dogged him, cleared up.
--
Sacha
Q
As you have already said, those are the sort of sources used in an
"authorized biography."
> The reason behind the book is supposed to be that before he dies, he wants
> all the rumours and counter-rumours that have always dogged him, cleared
up.
I hope that's the case. But, since ninety percent of *gossip* is *wishful
thinking,* that's not likely to happen.
-- Q
> --
>
> Sacha
>
Sacha
<Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
I remember you telling us that rather a long time ago and saying that this
made the danger of a hagiography much greater. But in this case, it seems
to be rather the opposite. He has been keen for everything to be brought
out and answered for.
>
>
>> The reason behind the book is supposed to be that before he dies, he wants
>> all the rumours and counter-rumours that have always dogged him, cleared
> up.
>
> I hope that's the case. But, since ninety percent of *gossip* is *wishful
> thinking,* that's not likely to happen.
> -- Q
>
No, it's not. But I think it's probably his nature to be honest - we know
already that he can be very blunt - and perhaps he's just fed up with all
the rumours circulating and would like to do what he can to pre-empt their
continuance when he dies. Not that I think it will make a lot of difference
but I do think it will draw some of the sting.
--
Sacha
Q
Certainly, in a world where segments of the press will say whatever they can
get away with saying, a denial is better than no denial. -- Q
> --
>
> Sacha
>
Jean Sue
Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut wrote on 9/6/04 10:46 PM:
> I don't know very much about Philip, and therefore, I have no idea.
>
> But authorizing one's close friends to discuss one's extra-marital love
> affairs for publication is IMO extremely peculiar behavior.
>
> The Queen might not go to pieces over it, but surely it cannot make her
> particularly happy to see their personal life on all the front pages. If
> she is apathetic, I'd find that equally strange.
>
I think at a certain age, people think of the past as past and let it all
flow under the bridge. Increasingly, I do.
Jean Sue
wrote on 9/6/04 6:52 PM:
well, I for one would not leave him to sleep on the streets. He's not
welcome in my bed (my husband would object) but he could certainly use the
guest suite.
--
jeansue
Make God laugh; show Her your plans for your life.
Candide
news:BD6263A8.2F7A%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
True, true. We keep coming back to this argument with all the regularity
of the tides. There is no hard and fast rule on what a woman should do
when confronted with an unfaithful spouse, and what's more it really
isn't anyone else's business.
Upper middle class women and above, many who may have married for
reasons other than passionate "love" learn men are not always as
constant in their affections as women. Remember these are women who
historically had households full of female servants their husband's
could turn to for sex.
After all in
> strictly practical terms, we are animals. The male of the species can
> impregnate thousands of women a year - technically speaking. The
female of
> the species can give birth only once a year, so survival of the
species
> could have meant what is now known as 'putting it about a bit'.
> Even in my own age group I know women who regret kicking out their
errant
> husbands, especially if it was over one incident. They feel they
would have
> preferred to keep the family intact because of the fallout on their
> children.
> And some studies back that up - they have shown that women are more
often
> the instigators of divorce and that later they regret it. I believe
it has
> also been shown that men are unlikely to leave their wives unless
there is
> another woman to go to, whereas women are more likely to cast off into
the
> unknown, as it were, > Where this book is concerned and the Queen's
views on it, it's necessary to
> remember that it's an *authorised* biography, so that the author had
access
> to papers, alone.
This is what "The Women" was about and quite brilliant at it too. Mrs.
Stephen Haines's mother tries to point out that her husband's fancy
woman means no more to him than a new dress to her, but it is Mary's
pride (and the goading of her girlfriends), that forces her hand and
causes her to loose the one thing she always wanted, her husband. Unlike
many regretful wives however, Mary Haines got a second chance to get her
man back and seized it.
Men are about sex; they can have it all day long with many different
partners and it not mean a thing. It is who he cares for and chooses to
protect, and spend his life with that matters.
Divorce your husband out of spite and he is left out there floundering
around like a wounded deer, and whom is waiting? The tart of course, now
that his legal marriage protection is removed, it all but forces his
hand as she will invariably say "you always promised you'd leave her for
me.....".
All this obviously only works in certain situations and certain people.
Usually it is people with a sense of "duty", and by duty I do not mean
just keeping up appearances, but the duty of providing a stable
environment for the children for instance.
Candide