To think if Andrew had been caught cheating instead of Fergie...

[CoughLaughFart]

...they would have worked it out and still be married?

Speculation about them remarrying has been in the papers again today. I don’t see it happening - but I can’t help thinking they sacrificed their marriage for the public image of the Royal Family. A Royal wife couldn’t be seen to get away with infidelity, even if the marriage was salvageable. However, had Andrew been papped sucking some tart’s toes instead of vice versa, I reckon Fergie would have been forced down the ‘dignified silence’ route - and perhaps the marriage would have survived as a result.

Obviously I know nothing about them personally, and the press picture could be very different to the reality. But I find it interesting to wonder if Fergie paid the price for being a woman and the ‘incomer’ - and indeed, if Andrew also effectively paid the price for his position and public image, whereas a layman might have worked to forgive his wife.

I don’t think Fergie went into her marriage agreeing to be a beard.
I think the powers that be probably encouraged Andrew to get married.
I think poor, naive Fergie was definitely in love. There was a huge hoohah when she left Beatrice aged 6 weeks to follow Andrew as his ship docked in various ports in Australia. Fergie always wanted to “stand by her man”

Who has the time to cheat!

Like others I thought it was a pretty well known "secret" about Andrew.

I always thought it was why they got on so well after she "cheated" - because they had an "arrangement" of a public marriage and private lives. Sarah's crime was getting caught, not what she did per se, but the divorce had to happen because Andrew couldn't be seen to take her back after she'd "committed adultery".

Again I thought it's why they still live together and get on, because they've always been friends and parents foremost rather than a married couple and she's still willing to keep quiet about the reality of their situation (having taken all the blame and flak remember) so Andrew "owes" her.

I think people forget just how long A&F have known each other - from the time they were children, as Major Ron was friends with the Queen and DoE. So theirs is a relationship that goes back over 40 years, it could be that they know each other better than anyone else ever will.

Am I the only one never to have heard the gay rumours about Andrew? Feel like I've been living under a rock all my life!

The thing we plebs down here don't understand is that it's accepted in those circles that shagging around, within the right parameters - not the bloody servants for preference - is expected and nobody really cares much

Yes - all very Victorian. If it doesn't happen in public, it doesn't happen.

It's always been the case among the 'better sorts' that marriages were for dynastic purposes, not love. So it was quite OK to seek your pleasures elsewhere - provided of course you were discreet. This was certainly true for men who have always been granted greater latitude in all things sexual, but in practice it must have been true for women too, as most of the upper-class women cheating with upper-class men would have been married too.

I've always thought Charles was probably quite shocked when Diana refused to tolerate his liason with Camilla. As an aristocrat herself, she should have known the way things were, and he probably wouldn't have cared if she'd taken a few discreet sidepieces too. But Diana was young and naive enough to think she'd married for love, and that was where the problems started.

Wasn’t the general ‘rule’ that once heir & spare were born in aristocratic circles the women could go off & have discrete affairs? Or have I made that up?

As with pp, I believe Andrew swings both ways. Never heard the same said about Sarah.

Agree icedpurple. They must all have been astonished by Diana 'behaving like a middle class housewife' with regard to Charles. I can remember being 19 though. At that age the world revolves around you. I think she thought Camilla, older and a bit worn, wouldn't be competition for long. Imagine being feted as a great beauty etc yet being rejected by your husband at such a young age. Soul destroying. Apparently Raine Spencer provided an endless supply of Barbara Cartland novels to Diana in her teenage years. Not what I'd be giving my teenaged daughter to prepare her for later life!

The Queen's cousin, Ivar Mountbatten, recently married his partner following (what seems to have been) an amicable divorce www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6199365/Queens-cousin-Lord-Ivar-Mountbatten-marries-romantic-ceremony-two-years-coming-gay.html

I do wonder if the "sorry, calendar is full" excuse was genuine for all the Royals - none of them attended the wedding

Just to respond to the comment about it being handled differently if it had been Andrew (the man) rather than the woman caught in the press - I doubt it, it didn't work well for Prince Charles, did it Although it would have been interesting if Sarah was seen as the saintly wife and gathered the same sympathy as Diana did.

I agree that anyone who is gay shouldn't be forced to come out, it's absolutely their own business. At the time Andrew was a member of the armed forces unfortunately their rules would not have allowed openly gay members, surely?

I think the reason they are so amicable is because he's gay.I imagine he told her whilst married

Andrew's obviously BI!

I can remember being 19 though. At that age the world revolves around you. I think she thought Camilla, older and a bit worn, wouldn't be competition for long. Imagine being feted as a great beauty etc yet being rejected by your husband at such a young age. Soul destroying.

Indeed. And the exact opposite of the usual scenario whereby the man cheats on his plain, similar aged wife with a young beauty. I read somewhere that every man in London wanted to sleep with Diana.... except her husband!

Andrew's obviously BI!

Genuine question: why is it obvious?

I love me a bit of royal gossip and thought I was reasonably well-informed, but I never heard of the 'Andrew is gay' rumours until now. Starting to feel a bit out of touch!

Perhaps by say 2033 George can just turn up at some event with Dad and Mum and he can just casually have some gorgeous young man in his arm.
Doubt it though. Can you imagine the headlines about the future King and his Royal consort, the endless articles about whether we could have two Kings and how it works for succession to the throne etc.

The thing is

Neil Patrick Harris and husband

And

Tom Daley and husband

Have biological children, it's doable in this day an age, but there's the complication of some random woman paid to be a carrier and the child's biological mother which would be as much endless press as Meghans father with more ethics issues

*The thing is

Neil Patrick Harris and husband

And

Tom Daley and husband

Have biological children,*

Well... ONE of them as a biological child. Babies do tend to need a mother though, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

"The word tart is misogynistic. It is used purely to describe females."

I've heard it used for a man.

"Wasn’t the general ‘rule’ that once heir & spare were born in aristocratic circles the women could go off & have discrete affairs? Or have I made that up?"

I don't know about the aristocracy, but a queen being unfaithful to a king was treason punishable by death.

"Who has the time to cheat!"

Umm, people with lots of servants? People with lots of houses in different places?

I can't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid if Prince Andrew 'came out'. Surely we are past that stage.

I can't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid if Prince Andrew 'came out'. Surely we are past that stage.

You'd like to think but I guarantee it would be a huge scandal. Maybe not so much his being gay as his having lived a double life for decades.

I do not think the House of Windsor will tolerate an openly gay senior royal for a long time to come.

The whole English language is littered with words that pertain to females, most often in a complimentary way.

No really, it’s not. Especially for females that have sex with more than one man.

The reason why we occasionally call a man a tart (a name originally and mostly intended for women) is because there isn’t an equivalent derogatory word for a man who does the same.

The reason why we occasionally call a man a tart (a name originally and mostly intended for women) is because there isn’t an equivalent derogatory word for a man who does the same.

Precisely!

I could rattle off a list of derogatory words for sexually active females off the top of my head, but I'd struggle to think of even one single such term specific to sexually active males.