site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

106
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You forgot to mention Princess Margaret and her own romantic entanglement, where she was in love with, and received a proposal of marriage from, a man who was divorced. There was an entire scandal over this, with public opinion (or at least, public opinion as the press expressed it) divided; most disapproved, but some said 'why not?' The big sticking point was the abdication crisis of her uncle, which is how her father came to the throne,and which was still exerting a lot of influence over political considerations,

Divorce was still faintly scandalous even up to the 60s. Margaret eventually had to publicly announce that she was breaking it off with her boyfriend:

On 31 October 1955, Margaret issued a statement:

I would like it to be known that I have decided not to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend. I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But mindful of the Church's teachings that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before others. I have reached this decision entirely alone, and in doing so I have been strengthened by the unfailing support and devotion of Group Captain Townsend.

Now, with regard to Camilla, it's not so much the Church of England (which has always been lagging behind society as customs change and it tries to hold the line on doctrine, while giving in on social changes due to 'pastoral sympathies'). Because it's a state church, the government can have the final say in what doctrines it does and does not get to legally enforce.

The kerfuffle around Camilla ad what title she would get was not about the Church of England disapproving of divorce; it was due to the Diana Factor. She was seen as the home-wrecker who had destroyed the fairy-tale marriage. She was The Other Woman, and Diana up to the divorce made hay of that: the (in)famous "three of us in this marriage" interview with Martin Bashir. All of this was very publicly played out in the media, with leaks, phone taps and the like being tabloid fodder.

And then Diana's death in that car crash put the final kibosh on matters. Had she lived on for years, while the temperature cooled about the marriage and divorce and all the rest of it, then things would have been easier. But at the height of the hysteria over the Princess of Hearts, even the Queen was coming under pressure for not being sufficiently supportive of her. So Camilla had to be shoved into the background, and any speculation about Charles as King has to downplay that Camilla would be Queen, not Diana. You can even see that in how she was referred to as the Duchess of Cornwall, not Princess of Wales, even after Diana's death. In fact, to cool down the excessive public heat about Diana being "denied" her rightful title, and the perception that the public would never ever accept Camilla as queen instead of Diana, the issued an announcement when Charles and Camilla got married that she wouldn't be queen, she would be princess consort:

Back when Charles and Camilla married in 2005, the couple issued a statement saying she planned to “use the title HRH the Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne.” And then in March 2020, reps for the couple reiterated this to The Times, saying, “The intention is for the duchess to be known as princess consort when the prince accedes to the throne. This was announced at the time of the marriage and there has been absolutely no change at all.”

A lot of tact and hard work went into rehabilitating her image, including work by the royals. And now it has been years since Diana died, Camilla was step-by-step integrated into the Royal Family, she gets on well with her stepsons, and now she will be Queen Consort, her proper title. She is not Queen in her own right as a reigning monarch, and she is not mother of the heir to the throne, so she is Queen by virtue of being married to the King. For the other side, see how Queen Elizabeth's husband was the Duke of Edinburgh (not King Consort) and the husband of Queen Victoria was Prince Consort (not King Consort, though she wished to create that title for him, but it was strongly resisted by the politicians).

The bit about "the queen's wishes" may seem like the usual boilerplate, but it is absolutely essential to smooth the transfer of power and for Camilla to use the title of Queen:

Either way, the late Queen made it abundantly clear that she wants Camilla to go by queen consort, releasing a statement to mark her Platinum Jubilee saying, “When, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes king, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me. And it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as queen consort as she continues her own loyal service.”

If you are a Loyal Subject, you can't disregard the intentions (politely phrased as a wish) of the queen as to what she wants done.

I hadn't realized the impact of Diana's popularity! That makes a lot of sense, silly as it seems to me.

... and the husband of Queen Victoria was Prince Consort (not King Consort, though she wished to create that title for him, but it was strongly resisted by the politicians).

That's adorable! I didn't know she had wanted to call him king consort. Royal marriages do run the gamut from the sordid to the sweet.

Victoria and Albert really do seem to have been a love match, she was besotted with him. But since the title of "king" generally meant "ruler" and not "husband of queen", there was historically a lot of reluctance to give this title to someone who married the female monarch, particularly in the days when the husband ruled the wife. They didn't want to hand over rule of the country to a foreign prince (that was a big part of the problem for Elizabeth I - how could she marry a foreign prince who wouldn't demand to be at least co-ruler, and if she married a commoner who was her subject, that wouldn't do either). It was also part of the travails of Mary, Queen of Scots; her second husband eventually grew impatient with just being a consort and demanded to be co-ruler (and he eventually ended up murdered for his troubles):

Before long, Darnley grew arrogant. Not content with his position as king consort, he demanded the Crown Matrimonial, which would have made him a co-sovereign of Scotland with the right to keep the Scottish throne for himself, if he outlived his wife. Mary refused his request and their marriage grew strained, although they conceived by October 1565.

I'm old enough to remember the hysteria around Diana's death and funeral, and there really were some elements whipping up anti-royal sentiment and even criticising the queen for not being publicly emotional enough in her grief. Saying that Camilla (the wicked Other Woman who had made Diana's marriage suffer) would be Queen and not Diana would really have lit a fire. So to manage public sentiment, the statements about "Duchess of Cornwall not Princess of Wales" and "Princess Consort not Queen" were issued.

But since the title of "king" generally meant "ruler" and not "husband of queen", there was historically a lot of reluctance to give this title to someone who married the female monarch, particularly in the days when the husband ruled the wife.

Yes, I see avoiding the implication that he ruled jure uxoris. That said, what would have been the implications if he had become co-ruler? It's hard for me to see how Britain would have been worse off for giving Albert or Philip more influence.