CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,583
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
Is it not interesting that Alexandra could have been Charles' sister-in-law if her sister Amanda had accepted his marriage proposal?
Wouldn't they be 2nd cousins? They are in the same generation so shouldn't be once removed. They have a common great grandparents.
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Is it not interesting that Alexandra could have been Charles' sister-in-law if her sister Amanda had accepted his marriage proposal?
No.No. Common mistake. The children of your first cousins are your first cousins once removed. Philip and Patricia are first cousins (Louis and Alice are sister and brother) so their sons Charles and Norton are 1st cousins once removed. Norton's children, including Alexandra, are Charles' second cousins.
"Second Cousins," "Once Removed", and More Explained in Chart Form
I remember having this discussion/debate in a biology class in university.
I have had my doubts, but I do believe that in a bio of Charles by Gyles Brandreth, there is a note of a proposal. However I dotnt believe that Charles wanted to marry her very much and she didn't want to marry him.Charles never proposed to Amanda. She was pushed towards Charles, as we know, by "Uncle Dickie". A serious relationship never sparked between Charles and Amanda. This was written in one of Sarah Bradford's books, the one about the .
I think that there is something in Dimbleby to indicate that he proposed and also Gyles Brandreth. but it is some time since I read Dimbleby.They knew each other for quite a bit of time and had spent considerable time in each other's company to know they weren't suited for each other as far as a marriage goes but that didn't detract them from being lifelong friends.
From what I've read, Charles did propose. Whether it was out of a sense of duty to the memory of Uncle Dickie .
well for upper class people of the time yes they did spent time apart, due ot work commitments. not that differenet to middle class ambitious people today. I know plenty of people who are always travelling for work, they cant spend much time iwht their partners (or kids). And I tihnk that frankly a few affairs are far less traumatic to children than people getting divorced all the time and inflicting new step parents on their unfiortunate kids.
Oh Please... Edwina's fortune paid for all of them. That woman kept Lord Louis, his sister, Princess Alice, his aunt and uncle Prince Francis and Princess Anna, all with allowances.
I find it interesting that women saved these royal backsides from genteel poverty. Princess Marie Bonaparte, Princess Anastasia - the former Nancy Leeds - Edwina Mountbatten, and today Princess Marie Chantal - all with their fortunes paid for these people to live a royal life.
that was my impression that Edwina did work during WWII and as Vicereine of India. And if she wasn't a home staying mother, she wasn't that different ot other upper class women who were busy with their social lives or with work related travel. And to modern women who - seems to me - can't spend that much time with their kids or partners becauase they are working and travelling a lot.Edwina did a lot of work when WWII and she put forth much effort in India while Lord Louis was Viceroy and the Independence question was raging. Edwina and Nehru, were, for a long time, the subject of rumors that they were lovers, but in fact, were close dear friends. Edwina is, for the most part, always the spouse portrayed as the one who was the adulterer, but Lord Louis himself alluded they both hopped from bed to bed with various partners. So he wasn't a true innocent, in fact, he was quite a ladies man.
Edwina's wealth certainly helped the Mountbattens as has been written, she wasn't the first wealthy bride to bail out a money poor Royal/Noble family.