Prince George, Duke of Kent and Princess Marina of Greece & Denmark - 1934

Odette · Oct 12, 2009

Beautifully said Boris. Those were the days when royal ladies were getting married and mostly stayed married no matter what the circumstances. :flowers:

Boris · Oct 12, 2009

Odette said:
Beautifully said Boris. Those were the days when royal ladies were getting married and mostly stayed married no matter what the circumstances.

With more or less happy results, though - the keyword for a happy kind of 'unconventional' marriage like this being 'honesty' from the start, I'd say...

...while deception always tended to produce disastrous results, and understandably so.

Odette · Oct 12, 2009

Absolutely. Very few were led to the altar without a clear understanding of what was expected of them.
Actually in most cases those couples were better equipped to handle the truth than most are nowdays. :flowers:

Yeo-wang · Oct 12, 2009

Boris said:
Why 'infamous'? His sexual preferences, period.
The word "understanding" means that Princess Marina undoubtedly was aware about these preferences prior to the marriage, knew exactly what she was getting herself into and decided to go ahead with it.
Judging by everything I have read, their unconventional marriage was based on a great friendhip and shared interests indeed, and the fact that it would be an unconventional one was very clear from the start to everyone involved.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against his sexual preferences, but I doubt his s/perferences were kindly accepted then when it's still not kindly accepted in many parts of the world today. And to add to that, I used the term to highlight his many affairs and I certainly had no intention of impying any unpleasant meaning into the term.

As for the "understanding" part, unless you've come to such judgement after reading Princess Marina's biography or an interview given by her, other people's words/views are just that....other people's w/v. What you say might be true but surely there are bound to be contradicting views on any topic, especially of this kind. They didn't make any formal/official announcement of the terms of their "unconventional" marriage, have they?

Even if the couple were in aggreement with this unconventional relationship I can't help but doubt about her being at peace with these affairs.

What I write is strictly my personal point of view and I have no intention of forcing on to others. Thank you.

Odette · Oct 12, 2009

That would have made me wonder if she were the only wife whose husband was having extramarital affaires of any kind.
Queen Ena of Spain never discussed K Alfonso's affaires and there are many others who knew but chose not to openly discuss it.
By no means these were the only two ladies whose husbands were involved elsewhere.
Those were different times and those in the know respected their privacy more than they do today. :flowers:

Dierna23 · Oct 12, 2009

I agree with what Odette says. It were different times and I still think that even today such understandings are possible as I can imagine that Prince & Princess Michael of Kent have an understanding (just my opinion because of all the rumours about her affairs) and if this should be the case, you can see that it CAN work if both are happy with it. I remember Marie-Christine saying: "Friendship is the most important in a marriage and relationship." Maybe her mother in law saw it the same way. :flowers:

Yeo-wang · Oct 12, 2009

The two terms 'unconventional' and 'privacy' would warrant just about any affairs...oh, those were different times.....hhmmm....

I thought marriage was based on TRUST and when your spouse starts fooling around with someone else he/she is breaking the trust, and I don't see how one can be happy knowing that or am I sooooooo narrow minded. Am I to welcome my husband with a happy smile when he returns home after sleeping with another woman? I don't think so....but many here seem willing to understand as long as there's an aggreement of some sort and happy.

Are such comments made because it's someone else's life and NOT mine??

Westminster · Oct 12, 2009

This all depends on your personal views on things and attitudes. Many people would be jealous like hell, other think that sex hasn't to do with love. Some people say if you get older and older there has to be an agreement, some people are in love like the first day they met. My very own opinion is that these people aren't ordinary people so its normal that they lead unnormal and unconventional marriages! Most of these couples aren't able to lead a normal marriage daylife, they are often seperated because each one has its own duties and engagements.

And its just the life of the upper class, isn't it? As for George and Marina. I think, Marina was just Georges type! I'm sure she understood him like no other woman could have understood him, instead they wouldn't have married. Georgie was some sort of bohemian and I think Marina wasn't too much conservative as well.

Russophile · Oct 12, 2009

One of the books I read about Elizabeth, can't remember which one it was, had stated that Marina was not without male companionship.
First and foremost: they did their duty. That's why I admire QE II so much, no matter what, she didn't go onto Oprah and spill her guts to the world about how lousy Philip was running around with Merle Oberon. Marina was cut from the same cloth. Things happened but it was nobody's business.
Marina was actually getting a good deal, the Greek throne was rather unstable. England was.
I think it was a good thing for the both of them and they made it work.
Yeo-Wang, nowadays relationships are based on trust. Back then it was all dynastic. I would imagine that Kate and William would marry for love--if they do marry, or Harry and whomever.

Boris · Oct 12, 2009

Yeo-wang said:
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against his sexual preferences, but I doubt his s/perferences were kindly accepted then when it's still not kindly accepted in many parts of the world today.

I actually believe that acceptance in those times in the UK largely depended on which social level a person belonged to. Prince George as a royal was at the very top of the most privileged, a circle in which he could do very much as he pleased - and of course without being scrutinized by an ever-present media.
Marina and George also considered themselves - and were considered by others - to be the only truly sophisticated couple in the Windsor family, largely keeping the private company of people who were less inclined to prejudice against homosexuality or unconventional marriages anyway.

I used the term to highlight his many affairs

I don't know about so 'many' affairs... apart from the legendary one with Noel Coward, there were longer relationships with a Frenchman and the son of a South American ambassador.

As for the "understanding" part, unless you've come to such judgement after reading Princess Marina's biography

Yes. There's interesting material about it in the biographies of Cecil Beaton, Noel Coward and Lord Mountbatten as well.

Another royal example (among many) of such an arrangement within a marriage that seems to have more or less worked out would be the one of King Gustaf V and Queen Viktoria of Sweden.

Boris · Oct 12, 2009

Russophile said:
Things happened but it was nobody's business.
Marina was actually getting a good deal, the Greek throne was rather unstable. England was.
I think it was a good thing for the both of them and they made it work.

IMO, this is actually quite a perfect summary.

Yeo-wang · Oct 13, 2009

His exclusive/private circles might have been more than understanding with these affairs but I was referring to the people who knew and held different views.

Unlike you, Boris, I'm someone who thinks more than one extramarital affair is one too many. And I was referring to affairs from both of his sexual preferences.

Again, these materials you've read are not her words from interviews or biography written by her. If the royals were exclusive and private people then who knows what really went on in their daily lives...unlike today where their most frivolous news/activities are known to us by the media.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about this royal couple's "unconventional" relationship since I'm not fully informed in depth about it, but I will come to my own conclusion in my own time. I have a lot to catch up on George/Marina and many more of my favorite royals. It was the primary reason why I joined The Royal Forums.

Difference is what makes us interesting and in that sense, I hope The Royal Forums is liberal enough to hold diverse views on different topics, provided they're expressed politely.

Marengo · Oct 13, 2009

Yeo-wang said:
Difference is what makes us interesting and in that sense, I hope The Royal Forums is liberal enough to hold diverse views on different topics, provided they're expressed politely.

Well said

.

Now, since we established that the duke had interest in men and women and that his wife knew about it, I suggest we can stop the discussion about wider issues like extra marital affairs and focus on the topic of this thread, which is the actual wedding.

More information about the prince George and princess Marina can be found in this thread at the British forum.

OlderThanILook · Dec 18, 2009

Honeymoon photos

In Princess Alice's memoir, she wrote that the Kents' honeymoon was so extravagant that she and Prince Henry were advised to keep theirs modest. Does anyone have information about or photos of the Kents' honeymoon? Thanks.

pdas1201 · Dec 18, 2009

OlderThanILook · Dec 18, 2009

Awesome photos! Why are there so many signatures on the marriage certificate? Pardon my ignorance!

Warren · Dec 19, 2009

It's a "royal" marriage certificate and all the royal relatives signed, even the then eight year-old Princess Elizabeth (along with her mother).

pdas1201 · Dec 19, 2009

Warren said:
It's a "royal" marriage certificate and all the royal relatives signed, even the then eight year-old Princess Elizabeth (along with her mother).

I don't see Princess Elizabeth's signature. I only see her mother's.

Warren · Dec 19, 2009

under Paul, Prince Regent of Yugoslavia and next to Olga - dead centre, three up from the bottom.

pdas1201 · Dec 19, 2009

Thanks, I saw it. But, I thought that was Princess Elizabeth of Greece, Marina's sister's signature. From what I can make out, it looks like an adult's signature not the signature of an eight year old.

Warren · Dec 19, 2009

Could be, but the 'E' is the same as she signs her name today [but followed by 'R'] so I assumed it was her.
You're more than likely correct; on second thoughts I'd imagine that at that age Princess Elizabeth of York would sign as 'Lilibet'.

Jacknch · Dec 20, 2009

The "Elizabeth" in question must belong to Princess ELizabeth of Greece I think on the basis that the lower stroke of the E is carried on to form the underline for the rest of the letters (LIke the E of Edward VIII) and our Princess Elizabeth has never done that even when she was young.

Catherine Helvin · Apr 27, 2010

That dress looked lovely on Princess Marina but personally I feel that a fuller skirt might have looked better.

KittyAtlanta · Jul 14, 2010

Yeo-wang said:
The two terms 'unconventional' and 'privacy' would warrant just about any affairs...oh, those were different times.....hhmmm....

I thought marriage was based on TRUST and when your spouse starts fooling around with someone else he/she is breaking the trust, and I don't see how one can be happy knowing that or am I sooooooo narrow minded. Am I to welcome my husband with a happy smile when he returns home after sleeping with another woman? I don't think so....but many here seem willing to understand as long as there's an aggreement of some sort and happy.

Are such comments made because it's someone else's life and NOT mine??

As others have stated, a lot of royal marriages were of convenience, not mainly about "love." I'm sure that "love" came to some of the unions, but not all. These women were more or less bound to marriage. They may or may not have been "happy," but they knew their duty. We may not, in our modern times, agree with duty before love, but this was the case with royals, nobility and commoners in earlier days...women needed husbands.

The dress was gorgeous and very avant garde...slinky! Indeed.

Russophile · Jul 15, 2010

KittyAtlanta said:
As others have stated, a lot of royal marriages were of convenience, not mainly about "love." I'm sure that "love" came to some of the unions, but not all. These women were more or less bound to marriage. They may or may not have been "happy," but they knew their duty. We may not, in our modern times, agree with duty before love, but this was the case with royals, nobility and commoners in earlier days...women needed husbands.

Indeed Kitty. And in Marina's case, she was very lucky to snatch Prince George. The Greek Royal Family had been exiled and deposed many times they were in chaos. The BRF represented stability. It was a good match. Not necessarily a love match though a good match nonetheless.

COUNTESS · Jul 15, 2010

You are right, Russo. She received stability. They received a princess, many thought to be beautiful. I cannot see it myself. I have looked at dozens of pictures of her and her smile was crooked and she was okay, but, IMO never beautiful.

Hereditary Thane · Jul 15, 2010

I disagree. It was Prince George who was lucky in landing Princess Marina, an accomplished and cosmopolitan woman, with great beauty and charm. Princess Ingrid of Sweden gave the playboy prince the brush off when he went a courting on the orders of his parents. King George V and Queen Mary were nortoriously stingy with their financial support of the couple. The then Duchess of York was, to put it frankly, envious of the Greek princess. In her widowhood, The Duchess of Kent kept her dignity and has passed it on to her children. Lets face it, they are the only royals to have any style and real commitment to public service. I believe all this condescending speculation about the late Duke and Duchess of Kent's marriage is exactly that.

Russophile · Jul 15, 2010

COUNTESS said:
You are right, Russo. She received stability. They received a princess, many thought to be beautiful. I cannot see it myself. I have looked at dozens of pictures of her and her smile was crooked and she was okay, but, IMO never beautiful.

She was certainly very stylish and showed it to advantage. Like this picture.
http://images.npg.org.uk/790_500/8/8/mw18388.jpg

Some people like Marina could do that.

(Russo looks like crap however you photgraph her. HA!

)

COUNTESS · Jul 15, 2010

She was stylish, beautiful, no. George was strange, to say the least. How their marriage went, behind closed doors, who knows. Some may say she had dignity and yes, she did, but she was also a snob. She told her children they were "more royal" than Elizabeth II, because her mother was a commoner. How does one know how envious the queen mother was of the Greek princess, any more than we know that the Kent marriage was one way or the other. Supposition.

Russophile · Jul 15, 2010

Wasn't the quote along the lines of "I have more Royalty in my blood than those Scotch Girls." ??

Prince George, Duke of Kent and Princess Marina of Greece & Denmark - 1934

Heir Presumptive

Heir Presumptive

Heir Presumptive

Commoner

Heir Presumptive

Heir Apparent, Royal Blogger

Commoner

Aristocracy

Heir Apparent

Heir Presumptive

Heir Presumptive

Commoner

Administrator

Commoner

Heir Presumptive

Commoner

Administrator in Memoriam

Heir Presumptive

Administrator in Memoriam

Heir Presumptive

Administrator in Memoriam

Former Administrator

Nobility

Heir Apparent

Heir Apparent

Heir Apparent

Aristocracy

Heir Apparent

Heir Apparent

Heir Apparent

Similar threads