Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    A nice job if you can get it.
    
    Steve

Just shows that royals are human too.  (Though from what I read, if Charles
is going to take a "full and active involvement" in his children's upbringing,
that will be a major change for him.)

			Steve

    I feel bad for Di, she is really sweet, and she is in a messy marriage.
    She deserves happiness just like anyone else. Gee they had their string
    of bad luck, not only did Fergie flip out but, the gorgious Windsor
    Castle burned down. It goes to show you money cant buy happiness (but
    it can help ;-)

    She could also divorce and find hapiness for herself... but she would
    have to forfeit the hopes of being "queen" some day.  Let's see if she
    chooses "hapiness" or "status" sometime in the future... It'd be
    interesting to see.
    
    At all accounts, I wish her well, she deserves a good choice.
    Ana
    

    
    
    I just hope that these kids arent too screwed up by all of this.
    Must say though that I too feel bad for Diana.  The poor girl
    found a lovenote to Charles ex that hes still paling around with
    only a few months before she was to wed him.  Only the rest of
    the world wasnt told of this until recently.  She really deserves
    to be given some credit for not completely loosing it.
    
    

...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

-s

    Di put up with a lot of crap from Charles, I dont blame her to go her
    own way, he was dishonest right from the beginning, and she had fairy
    tale hopes in her head, but sometimes life does not go as the fairy
    tales and the prince and princess dont live happily ever after. It is
    too bad what is happening. I remember being so intrigued with the 
    wedding when it was on TV back in 1981.

    I think its their business, not ours.  Last night I happened to tune
    into a documentary on the monarchy and they actually had provided
    a 900 number for people to call into to vote yes or no whether Charles
    and Diana should divorce!  I got better things to do:-)
    
    Any time *anybody* separates or divorces its sad...makes you wonder
    about the worth of that piece of paper.
    
    P.S.  This was first time I have responded to anything in this
    notes conference.  I just joined last week...
    
    cheers,
    dianna

    I cant beleive there is a 900 number that is sick!!!!! How tackey
    can you get, you are right it is none of our business but that is not
    what the media (who makes tons of dough on other's misfortunes)!!!
    
    It is sad when anyone seperates or stops becoming freinds.

    
>    Any time *anybody* separates or divorces its sad...makes you wonder
>    about the worth of that piece of paper.
>    
>    P.S.  This was first time I have responded to anything in this
>    notes conference.  I just joined last week...
>    
>    cheers,
>    dianna




Hi dianna.  Have you ever been married ?  I have, and I can tell you, things
came up that eventually seemed more painful than what that piece of paper
was worth.

Thanks.

/Eric

Whenever there's a 900 phone number, someone *other* than the phone company
is collected a good portion of the fee each caller pays.

What company is putting up that 900 number this time ?

There was a number here in the UK too set up for the same question. I don't 
know what the outcome was, and I don't care. How can the public decide whether
they should divorce or not. It's up them. I fell sorry for their marriage breaking up, 
but I', not going to take sides, partly because I don't care, and partly because
nobody outside of the Royals knows what the true story is.

Let them live apart, let them divorce, let them do what they like, just leave them
alone!

Ian

    
    RE: .12
    
    amen !
    
    dotty

    Re: 11 and 12, 
    
    I second that!

    If the Monarchy crumbles, would they go the presidential route?

    re .15
    
    I doubt it.  They will probably stay with the Parliamentry system they
    have now. The Monarchy as it is now doesn't have that much power over
    the government. I believe that the only power it has is to dissolve
    parliament at the Prime Minister's request or if the government is in
    chaos and is unable to govern properly. After that an election must be
    held to form the next government.
    
    One thing that might happen is that the Queen may pass the crown on to
    Prince William instead of Charles!
    
    Oh, by the way, I'm new here, just signed in a few minutes ago.
    "Hi everyone!"
    Darren
    

The British monarchy is largely ornamental nowadays.

	Steve

    
    
    Who really cares??? There are more important issues going on in the
    world then having to turn on the news or open the paper and read about
    Charles and Di's woes, or Tatums and John's.
    
    Tell me how we are going to solve some of our own problems please.
    
    MEF
    

    Hello,
    
    Yes I have been married in answer to hannah::osman, so like a lot of
    individuals I speak from experience. The whole marriage concept is
    dying...there are more people divorced than ever before.  Its kinda
    scary...thats why I said makes you wonder why people go through all
    the legalities...and for what, most people can't seem to work out
    their problems together, they split and move on...Everyone believes
    the grass is always greener...Too bad people can't grow together,
    normally its one moving faster than the other.  The other gets
    impatient waiting.  If I had a recipe for couples to live happily
    together I would sell it for nothing and get back to what is really
    important in life....too many of us are not happy with *ourselves*
    thats a big barrier right there.
    
    cheers,
    

    There was a movie about Charles and Di Sunday nite that kind of went
    throught the entire marrage in two hours, it was interesting.
    
    
    

    Re .19
    
    
    Some interesting points were brought up in this note.
    
    
    For example... if divorce weren't 'so simple' to get, would people be 
    better off?  Consider, that in the previous generations divorces
    weren't granted as readily as they have been in todays generations....
    
    Back then, when our grandparents were married, you had to go through 
    all sorts of legalities to divorce and even then it wasn't necessarily 
    a certainty that you were going to be granted the divorce... 
    
    People HAD to work out their problems, not because they were more
    devoted to the marriage vows, but because the courts were.  In many 
    states you could not get a divorce unless BOTH parties agreed to it.
    And even then both people were generally 'severily repremended and 
    strongly reminded of their marriage vows' the judges would uphold the 
    'letter of the vows' 
    
    Now you sign a form, talk to a lawyer and wait until the papers go
    through court.
    
    Skip

    Re .21: Ah, the good old days - when people became so desperate to be
    rid of a spouse that they'd lie, cheat, or kill to do it. When adultery
    was almost the only grounds for a divorce, so people would either go
    commit it themselves or hire someone to testify that their mate had
    done so. When the social stigma of being divorced was so strong that
    each party felt obliged to prove that the other was the villain, and
    would go to great lengths to do so - regardless of truth.
    
    It's undoubtedly true that the reduction of social pressure against
    divorce and the ease of obtaining divorces has helped to increase the
    divorce rate; some folks may just give up too easily. But I don't know
    that people were better off when it required proof of criminal activity
    on the part of at least one spouse to dissolve a marriage...
    
    I've always thought it should be tougher to get married in the first
    place, but somehow I don't think that idea will get very far.
    
    -b

    re kill do to it... the crime rate of spouse killing spouse is as high 
    in percentage today as it was back then.  As for 'lie and cheat' what's 
    different there?  
    
    I agree that marriage should be 'harder' in the first place.  But then
    you start getting into issues of 'freedom' when you place ristrictions
    and the criteria would be at issue.  
    
    The point I was making was that unlike today, in the good old days,
    when a problem in marriage accured, the two people were forced to
    resolve it and/or explore all options to resolve it instead of saying 
    'that's it, we're incompatable lets get a divorce'.  
    
    Further, you didn't necessarily have to 'prove' the spouse was a
    villain or involved in criminal activity.  You had to prove that you
    had a legitamate reason for divorce.  Today there's no such thing, all 
    you have to do is state you don't want to be married.  
    
    Although the divorce rate has increased between older couples 
    who were married in the 'good old days' statistically more of those
    marriages of remained intact because social stigma against divorce, and 
    the complications envolved with getting the divorce forced the couple
    to learn to communicate in a more effective manner and resolve or learn
    to tolerate the same 'problems' that would ordinarily be cause for a
    divorce today.  
    
    Television and the media played up the 'lie, cheat, kill' aspect for 
    mystery movies... the fact is that the statistic of such are no more 
    greater or less then they are today.  The difference is that because 
    divorce was so difficult people had to learn to work with each other 
    effectively in ways that just don't happen today.  It's far too easy to 
    throw up the hands and say it's over.  Instead of taking the effort and 
    time to work out the problems.  Why learn to live with a problem or 
    work it out with your mate when it's easier to just hire a lawyer and 
    be ride of it?
    
    Skip

Re .23:
    
>    re kill do to it... the crime rate of spouse killing spouse is as high 
>    in percentage today as it was back then.  As for 'lie and cheat' what's 
>    different there?  
    
    Alas, the rate of spousal murder is, I believe, higher today than it
    used to be; though, from what I observe in the police reports, I don't
    know that the current ease of divorce has much to do with it. Besides,
    if a person is married to someone who would rather kill them than let
    them leave, or whose idea of "resolving their differences" involves
    physical violence, do you recommend that this couple stay together and
    "work things out"? Sounds lovely.
    
    As for the lying-and-cheating: I've been through an uncontested,
    "irreconcileable differences" divorce, and I can tell you that there
    _is_ a big difference re the "lie and cheat" aspect of things. I _was_
    going to get out of the marriage, no matter what; if there had not been
    a provision for a "no-fault" divorce, I might well have resorted to
    some unsavory actions indeed to get what I wanted. I am very glad that
    that, at least, was not needed; the pain of acknowledging failure and
    opting to break the marriage contract was quite enough, without adding
    to it the necessity to come up with an excuse that the law would
    accept.
    
>    The point I was making was that unlike today, in the good old days,
>    when a problem in marriage accured, the two people were forced to
>    resolve it and/or explore all options to resolve it instead of saying 
>    'that's it, we're incompatable lets get a divorce'.  
>   
>    Further, you didn't necessarily have to 'prove' the spouse was a
>    villain or involved in criminal activity.  You had to prove that you
>    had a legitamate reason for divorce.  Today there's no such thing, all 
>    you have to do is state you don't want to be married.  
    
    _My_ point was that practically the only reason for which one might get
    a divorce was adultery on the part of one's spouse, and adultery was
    largely considered a crime. Even charges of brutality or abandonment
    were not always sufficient to obtain a divorce. As for being "forced to
    explore all options," that kind of force may well lead otherwise
    goood-intentioned people to commit some pretty unpleasant acts. I
    believe the Victorian version of an "amicable" divorce consisted of
    the husband offering to allow himself to be caught in flagrante delicto
    with a hired co-respondent. (I suppose one _could_ think of that as
    "resolving the couple's problem," but I don't think that's what you had
    in mind.)
    
    Certainly, it's true that easy access to divorce, and the lack of
    social pressure against it, allows people to opt out of an
    uncomfortable situation without having to at least _try_ to make it
    work. On the other hand, while most people could, if _forced_ to, make
    a life (of some sort) together with just about anybody, I don't see the
    value in forcing them to keep at it if either party doesn't want to. We
    (most of us, anyway) no longer live in a time or place where survival
    depended on being part of a couple. While it's possible that forcing
    people to stay together may result in their making some worthwhile
    discoveries about themselves and each other, it's also possible that it
    won't, and/or that their energies would be better spent doing something
    else.
    
    -b

    did you know that today keeping a relationship together whether married
    or not is the toughest thing to accomplish -- harder than finding
    employment, putting food on the table, paying your bills, etc.
    
    we all got our work cut out for us:-)
    
    dme

    Humpph.  Back in the forties, when my grandparents reached the point
    of irreconcilable differencies, my grandmother moved to Arizona.
    
    Which is what the kings and queens of England have customarily done
    -- without benefit of the spacious state of Arizona, of course.
    
    						Ann B.

    There's nothing easy about divorce, even an "amicable" one.  I don't
    care how "easy" it is legally.  I know because I'm going through one.
    If forcing people to stay together resulted in good marriages, I might
    agree that making divorce harder was ok, but I know too many people
    who never learn to communicate ... they just tough it out ... unhappy,
    but forced by circumstance, religious views, depression or whatever,
    to live unhappy for the rest of their lives.  In my opinion that's a
    shameful waste of lives.
    
    Karen.

    I agree with Karen (.27).  In the old days people weren't forced to
    resolved their differences, they were condemned to living lives of
    misery with people they no longer loved, or maybe even hated.  
    
    It's a shame so many marriages end in divorce these days, but I prefer
    that to spending the rest of my live with someone I couldn't stand.  At
    least this way people have a chance of finding future happiness, even
    if it's alone.
    
    Lorna
    

    I DON'T agree with Karen, because if this were true, then these self
    same marriages would be filling the courts today.  
    
    I'm not talking Victorian ages people I'm talking about such things as 
    the laws that were in practice back in the 40's 50's and even 60's...
    
    These people are still alive today and percentages show that
    statiscally more of them are STILL married even though the laws,
    attitudes and such have significantly changed.  
    
    My own parents are a classic example... in the early 60's they decided 
    to separate and divorce.  The courts decided that they should NOT be 
    granted a divorce as yet, according to what they've told me, because 
    of my sister and myself.   
    
    They decided that okay, if that's the way it was to be they'd stick it 
    out until we were grown.  They did just that, then a couple years
    later, my younger sister came along, 8 years after that, my younger
    brother.  When we were all finally grown and moved out, I asked my
    father if he was going to go through with the divorce... (My sister 
    couldn't remember that period of time but I did).  
    
    My father looked at me and told me 'hell no, I'm happy with our lives
    now'  My mother replied the same thing... 
    
    They could have been granted a divorce in the 60's my brother and
    sister never would have come along, and my life would have been very 
    different.  
    
    Up until my mother died, which devistated my father, they were content 
    and happy with each other and their lives.... and after asking my
    father about it (after my mother's death's) he informed me that NOT
    getting the divorce was the best thing that happened to them.  They had 
    no choice but to resolve thier differences, and find some way to make 
    things at least tolerable with each other... what became tolerable
    eventually lead to them suddenly realizing that they were still in love 
    and glad that they never got the divorce.  
    
    If you check into many other couples from these time periods, you'll
    find that a lot of the same stories are true.... they reached a point 
    where they'd wished they could have gotten out of the marriage, but 
    the laws forced them to remain together and as such they resolved the 
    problems and rediscovered a lot about themselves.  
    
    The courts today DON'T require enough counseling... and to be honest, 
    I really thing that when a couple want to divorce, they should be
    forced to remain in a locked room for two weeks or until the shouting 
    stops.  THEN decide if they can resolve they're problems or if they
    should go through with the divorce.  Barring of course, the reason for 
    the divorce in the first place is mental or physical abuse.  
    
    You see, folks, I'm not saying that divorce should not be.  I'm all for 
    a couple going and getting divorced if they're miserable with each
    other.  Hell I'm divorced myself.  
    
    
    BUT.... I don't think it should be done quiet so readily.  Two people 
    in most (not all) circumstances, get married because they felt
    something for each other... all avenues of rediscovering what they felt
    or saw in each other to prompt marriage should be explored BEFORE the 
    judge says 'You're divorced' and I DON'T believe 'trail seperation' or 
    '6 months waiting' is an answer.  Complience with a requirement for 
    counseling might be.  But a 'trial seperation' only allows them to 
    see if they're as well off without each other as with.  
    
    Most people ARE as well off without each other as with.  Less pressure 
    living on my own then living with someone else.  I'm responsible for
    only me.  
    
    Get the idea?
    
    Skip

    Well, perhaps my ex and I are a bit odd, but we continued counseling
    long after separating, and are continueing with the divorce.  But I
    guess I have a hard time stomaching the idea of the state/country/laws
    FORCING me to do so.  I believe very strongly in taking responsibility
    for my own life and I resent the idea that anyone would think they had
    the right to force me to stay married.
    
    I value my freedom, and chafe at paternalistic laws meant to protect me
    from myself.  I'll take care of myself, thank you.  And if I or my ex
    make a mistake, then I'll live with the results, and I trust that he's
    willing to live with his ... this is one thing we both agree on!
    
    Karen.

    Who said anything about Forcing and taking away any freedom?
    
    Sheesh... you still don't get it.  
    
    Sorry I brought it up.
    
    Skip

    Skip - you asked whether people might not have been better off in the
    times when they were more strongly encouraged - by laws, social
    pressure, religious pressure, or whatever - to try harder to make a go
    of a marriage. You got answered by a few folks who don't think so.
    Now, even though I'm one of the "don't think so"s, I will readily agree
    that many people give up on things - all sorts of things, not just
    relationships - too easily, and those same people may never know the
    deep satisfaction of working through problems together, or the strength
    of a relationship (or a job, etc.) that has weathered a few storms.
    BUT... I do not think that legislating counseling, etc., is a very
    effective way to encourage people to try harder, nor do I necessarily
    believe that all people would value a storm-weathering kind of life
    more than they would a flit-from-flower-to-flower kind. And I'm sure
    not going to make that decision for them.
    
    Now, when dependent children are involved, there's a good deal more
    value to society in keeping a marriage together - it's very expensive
    to all of us when families break up, all the more so when (as happens
    too often) the custodial parent and the kids wind up needing public
    assistance, etc. There has been a lot of argument over whether it's
    better for children to grow up in a "stable" home even if the parents
    have to work to conceal their own differences, or whether the
    underlying emotional stress will make the kids' lives miserable so
    they'd be better off with two happy-but-separate parents.
    
    As for what I'd be willing to do about it... well, I'd be in favor of
    educational or counseling programs that teach people how to resolve
    conflicts, or how to build personal relationships. I might be willing
    for there to be some kind of recommended counseling to couples
    considering divorce - though I'd like to see the same for couples
    considering marriage! But I can't support, and don't see much value to,
    anything that would make it harder to get a divorce...
    
    -b

    
    that Charles, now theres a wild young prat.
    
    

Skip,

Normally I agree to varying degrees with what you say but the idea of 
forcing anyone to not try to correct a bad mistake they've made or forcing
councelling on anyone is seriously dodgy sounding to me.

A lot of people with problems are quite good at using anything they're offered
in the way of things like councelling to turn things around out side of the 
councelling session and use it as a weapon to prove their right to say they're 
in the right.

I know a few older couples who have stayed together courtesy of pressure - 
they don't throw things at each other that I know of or play cruel tricks but 
they do spend as many holidays as they can appart, have very different interest 
that they don't share with each other and sleep in separate rooms ... they're
house sharers rather than couples but both are effectively barred from 
finding more rewarding partnerships.

With divorced parents, divorced friends and awaiting a divorce (it's not easy 
even just thinking about it!) myself I don't think much of divorce but I don't
think I know anyone who regrets their divorce and not all of us give up easily 
on things - we just know when we're fighting a loosing battle/flogging a dead
horse/wasting valuable time energy and caring on something that is never 
going to reap the rewards that we need in our lives.

I also don't agree that any couple who gets married necessarily have good strong 
feelings appropriate to base a long term relationship with each other on for 
each other - it takes more than being infatuated or charmed or mislead or on 
the rebound in need of knowing you're wanted or an urge to play the mummy/daddy 
roles and have kids sometime to give any kind of reasonable foundation for a 
marriage that's not mroe of a waste to try to preserve than worthy of a 
tidy and painless as possible divorce.


Jo

    I agree, once two people have made up their mind to divorce, I don't
    believe it's anyone's business or place to tell them they cannot.
    When parents are not in love, and life is not good, I feel it's
    *worse* for the children in the long run if they go their seperate
    wasy, not better - I certainly wish my parents had divorced, instead
    of "staying together for the children", it would have been much 
    better for all of us.
    
    I have an Aunt who divorced her husband and remarried later, so,
    as they say, nothing is forever......
    
    bright blessings,
    -HA

Time for a relevant joke:

This couple approaches the local magistrate, asking for a divorce.

The magistrates jaw drops open.  "But, but, you two have been mainstays of
our little town for years !  Why, you've had what seemed to us all a model
marriage.  Your years together served as an example of how people *can* learn
to work things out.  Besides, you're both now well into your nineties, why
would you want a divorce now ?"

The aged couple quickly replied "we wanted to wait until the children were
dead".


/Eric

p.s.	If you send me mail telling me how you liked this, don't just say
	"I liked the joke", because I won't know which one.  Say "the one
	about the couple applying for a divorce" for example.  Thanks.  I've
	gotten mail saying just "I thought it was funny" from people reading
	jokes I posted 5 years ago !

    Diana is a babe.
    
    Charles may be a prince and all, but hey, he's not exactly the most
    pleasant-looking guy on the  face of the Earth, if you know what I mean.
    
    I mean, if Roseanne Arnold wanted me, I'd politely say "no way" in
    spite of her vast wealth.  There are some things not worth waking up
    to in the morning, for any amount of money or fame.  Any guy who's
    picked up a woman at 2am after drinking all night knows what I mean.

    
    >Diana is a babe.
    
    Nahh, its Fergie that's the babe.

I'd have to side with Mike on this one.

		Steve

    
    we'll see when the papparazi get their crack at Di in similar
    circumstances..

    re:37
    
    I agree with you about Charles ;-)

    re:.38
    
    I really like Fergie's personality, but when it comes to babehood,
    Diana wins.  I bet Fergie was more fun, though.