Talk:Jacobian branch of the royal family

I don't get how dating someone a couple of years older than you could be considered scandalous. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 17:56, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * In the twenties it was definitively a no-go. A man was supposed to marry a younger woman, preferably one who was at least three years younger. Nowadays, nobody cares :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:28, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really in the twenties. Marrying a woman one year older than you wasn't scandalous. Also, you seem to say "definitively" a lot, Oos. Most of the time it seems like "definitely" would work better. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:48, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you're right about "definitely", but not about it being scandalous in the twenties :) In some parts of the Netherlands (Limburg excluded this time) it is impossible to marry an older woman without being excommunicated from the community. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:01, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I know two older men who have wives that are a couple months older than them, and no one complained about that. They were both married in the fifties, so extrapolating to the twenties, it wouldn't be so scandalous. Then again, this is America (or Lovia), not the Netherlands. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:17, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you shouldn't forget the impact WWII had on society (of course I can't tell for the US). The position of the Church started to decreased tremendously in the fifties and sixties (especially for the youth, who married at that time). Take this table: KVP, CHU and ARP were the major Christian parties, steadily getting 50, 13, and 13 seats. By 1972, this had decreased to 27, 14, and 7.
 * Anyway, it could've been scandalous at the time (though not per se). The page says "slightly". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:16, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Back then it was a bigger deal, and dont forget that they're royalty. It makes it more scandalous. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:31, May 31, 2012 (UTC)