A Wife for Prince Andrew, Duke of York


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
One has to remember that Sarah didn't really "divorce" Andrew. She had no choice but to run for her life from the "Grey Men" and "The Firm".From reading her book "My Story" it seems to me it was either get out or go mad. I think she's right on when she calls her relationship with Andrew as a "marriage of souls". She claims they will never remarry, but is it so wrong to be in love with your former husband/wife?:ermm:
 
They both(Andrew and Sarah) have made similar statements about their divorce. Sarah has said "It's nothing but a piece of paper" and Andrew told at least one publication that " We aren't only doing it just for the children"...meaning maintaining their close family unit.

They seem almost defiant the way they continue to issue family Christmas cards as if no divorce ever occurred...and also taking holidays together en famille. People who have been inside Sarah's homes say they are almost a shrine to Prince Andrew, that there are more photos of her handsome sailor prince than anyone else including her children.

I sometimes wonder as well if they were not pressured to divorce against their will, and this is the way they have decided to "get even?" :ermm:
 
rmay286 you are so right, I don't he'll ever look at anyone like that again.
I also really love the little clip at 0:52, I don't know where or when it was. He might just have returned from a stint at sea. They look as if at that moment everything was perfect in their world.

Moonmaiden23 "giddy" is just the word. Diana and Charles just doesn't compare.
Perhaps because Diana was just 19, you kind of forget that mid 20's was also young to get married.
They looked just liked two kids. A longer engagement might have helped, to be married within a year of getting together, even today, is fast moving. I read also that Andrew was in the UK for the six months prior to the wedding during a course for navy career. Great to be able to get very involved in the wedding arrangements but it also left Sarah very unprepared for life without Andrew, when she was kinda used of seeing him every day.

ilubertie, you nailed it, really nailed it, sums them up perfectly.

Duchessmary, nothing wrong at all with still being in love. It just that sometimes love just isn't enough, but I suppose in their own way their have shared their lives.

I think the photos works both way. I think if any girlfriend of Andrew's suggested taking pictures of Fergie down they would be given short shift.

I think they had many more good times than bad.

HMMM I just wonder if she can expect a bouquet of flowers from her handsome prince on their anniversary. They mighn't let the small matter of a divorce get in their way of celebrating.
 
One has to remember that Sarah didn't really "divorce" Andrew. She had no choice but to run for her life from the "Grey Men" and "The Firm".From reading her book "My Story" it seems to me it was either get out or go mad. I think she's right on when she calls her relationship with Andrew as a "marriage of souls". She claims they will never remarry, but is it so wrong to be in love with your former husband/wife?:ermm:
She only had no choice because of the idiotic choices she made in the first place.
Don't forget she and Diana had a "pact" (Lesley Player's book, Tina Brown's book) to get out of the marriage. Diana leeked everything she could about Fergie's peccadillo's to the press using her as a canary in a coal mine to gage which way she could fleece Charles the best.
Unfortunately, Sarah still hasn't learned any of these lessons which is why I don't believe they will ever remarry. Andrew has grown up, Sarah has not.
 
@Irish Eyes because I believe they love each other still. And they live in a different world. They don't care much about press and opinions, only now. But in ten years this scandall will be forgotten and then they can marry again. A love story like Charles and Camilla and Edward and Wallis. But different.:)

As you can see some people will never forget. The question is: does it matter? ;) And will they (Sarah and Andrew) care about it?
 
Sarah is an embarrasment; Andrew could have done so very much better. He still can, actually.

I absolutely agree, and I wish he would. Please, some suggestions for suitable ladies.

'A Wife for Prince Andrew' is my fave thread on RF's
 
I honestly cannot imagine, after everything that has happened, that even if Andrew and Sarah were a couple in private, which I doubt, that they still are. She betrayed him by trying to sell him out for half a million pounds, and this is after he had been loyal to and supportive of her for years. I think the only reason he is attempting to help her and, as far as anyone knows, allowing her to still live with him is to protect his daughters; if he doesn't take on the emotional and financial burden of Sarah, they will have to.
 
Yes, let's move away from the tiresome "Andrew is gonna remarry her 'cause he luuurrvesss her!" bit; we only have the idea from Sarah's mouth that he does. The most anyone else will commit to is that he "supports" her, and it's not as though any member of the Royal family (let alone Andrew) would take the time to refute her assertions.

I think that if he were going to marry her again, he certainly would have by now; Charles and Camilla paved the way for that.

I'd rather see this thread return to potential mates for Andrew that don't include repeating his mistakes. There is the saying 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Andew clearly remembers this past and has decided not to repeat it. Sarah, on the other hand, has selectively deleted the portions that made her such a miserable wife forced into adultery, and pants after a remarriage.

Let's freshen our outlook, open up our Gothas and an issue of The Economist; I suggest we set some criteria here.

I'll start with:

Protestant (because who needs controversy?)
Age 35-45 (otherwise it looks a bit predatory)
Not American

I'd like to see Andrew court and marry someone from perhaps Canada, New Zealand or Australia: someone college educated with some life experience in international trade or a similar background that would complement his work as the British trade ambassador.

I would especially enjoy seeing him marry someone not necessarily of 100% white heritage.

What other criteria would you think might be of benefit?

I think we are looking for a helpmate and equal to Andrew although not necessarily in rank; someone of responsible mein who has shown a history of solid decision making.
 
I'll start with:

Protestant (because who needs controversy?)
Age 35-45 (otherwise it looks a bit predatory)
Not American

I'd like to see Andrew court and marry someone from perhaps Canada, New Zealand or Australia: someone college educated with some life experience in international trade or a similar background that would complement his work as the British trade ambassador.

I would especially enjoy seeing him marry someone not necessarily of 100% white heritage.

What other criteria would you think might be of benefit?

I think we are looking for a helpmate and equal to Andrew although not necessarily in rank; someone of responsible mein who has shown a history of solid decision making.

Why not an American? If she's well educated, from a good background, and not Catholic, what's the big deal? I think it could give the British monarchy a rise in popularity and interest if he were to marry an American.
 
Why not an American? If she's well educated, from a good background, and not Catholic, what's the big deal? I think it could give the British monarchy a rise in popularity and interest if he were to marry an American.

Hmmm- you may be right, it's just that I think (and your mileage may vary) that there were so many references to his first wife's "American-like freshness" that there could be a recoil effect.

I'm also not sure how much of a "bump" in popularity it would give Andrew is his own country, to court and marry an American. Things are a bit frosty now between the US and the UK for a number of reasons, and I think that the UK public might be a bit put off at the idea of an American drawing from the Civil List!

I'm trying to find some criteria that keeps the options open while respecting the circumstances that Andrew is in, what with current events, the political climate, and his own background.
 
I think that if he were going to marry her again, he certainly would have by now; Charles and Camilla paved the way for that.

I think you've hit on a very interesting tidbit here as to why Andrew has NOT remarried nor is looking to.

One of the main reasons that the Queen perhaps gave permission for Charles to marry Camilla is the fact that in the Church's eyes, he was no longer divorced but by Church standards, a widower as his former wife was deceased. In Andrew's case, to the Church he is divorced and his ex wife is very much alive. Although Charles did set a precedence in being able to marry a divorced woman, he married civilly with a blessing of the marriage by the CoE.

Adding to this.. the fact that Anne was allowed to marry as a divorcee in the Church of Scotland.. I think the reason being is in simple words. Male line descent. IF Andrew was to marry anyone, there would be a possibility of a male issue from the union.. hence in line for the throne. My grandfather was 57 when my father was born and almost 60 when my uncle was born.

With the Queen being the head of the CoE, I can't see her giving Andrew permission to marry anyone as by Church standards, his wife is very much alive although they are legally divorced. This is perhaps the main reason Andrew remains single. I really don't see where he would remarry Sarah which would propel her right back into the Firm where she herself felt like a fish out of water.

The situation they have now works well for them and I really don't see it changing at all.
 
Last edited:
I'm also not sure how much of a "bump" in popularity it would give Andrew is his own country, to court and marry an American. Things are a bit frosty now between the US and the UK for a number of reasons, and I think that the UK public might be a bit put off at the idea of an American drawing from the Civil List!


As Andrew doesn't get any money from the government through the Civil List that wouldn't be an issue.

Only the Queen and DoE get money from the Civil List. The rest of the family are supported by the Queen.

The government pays for expenses that arise from doing official duties on their behalf.

Until 1992 Andrew was on the Civil List, along with many other royals but the Queen changed things then and now reimburses any money paid as annuities to all members of the family except for herself the her husband.
 
As Andrew doesn't get any money from the government through the Civil List that wouldn't be an issue.

Only the Queen and DoE get money from the Civil List. The rest of the family are supported by the Queen.

The government pays for expenses that arise from doing official duties on their behalf.

Until 1992 Andrew was on the Civil List, along with many other royals but the Queen changed things then and now reimburses any money paid as annuities to all members of the family except for herself the her husband.

Good clarification. I was thinking more along the lines of perception; Andrew is still seen as being funded by the government and Queen and that would extend to his new bride. Since his expenses are not self-funded, he is seen as being "on line for his pay."

What other criteria for a wife, or modifications to the list?
 
Last edited:
Why not an American? If she's well educated, from a good background, and not Catholic, what's the big deal? I think it could give the British monarchy a rise in popularity and interest if he were to marry an American.

That's like suggesting William and Paris Hilton as a couple. :ROFLMAO:

I really don't think the BRF are in the market to "boost" their popularity with the media. They are not celebrities where they depend on the media for their rise and fall of popularity.. they are not individual personas so to speak of their own. They represent something that is far greater than that.
 
Andrew would have to be a widower?

No, although I think that would be preferable. NOT to suggest that I am cursing his prior wife into her grave, but having her continue the dog-in-the-manger routine is so tiresome.

How about "his prior wife has been relocated and is under adult supervision?"
 
These are unfair accusations against the Duchess of York. The couple will reunite in some years if not soon, they are made for each other and they love their daughters so much. Their Highnesses, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, will connect those two forever. Please, don't be so hurtful!
 
She is not The Duchess of York, and never will be again.
Sarah has the best of both worlds, she doesn't have to be part of "The Firm" and yet she still gets saved by her ex mother-in-law.

IMO Beatrice and Eugenie have got used to their parents being divorced, and now they are grown up don't mind seeing them apart. They have their own love lives to lead, and don't have to repair their parents broken marriage.
 
Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? ;) These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice. :flowers:
 
Well considering I put at the start of my comment to do with Beatrice and Eugenie IMO, which means In My Opinion. I am not claiming to know anything about what Eugenie and Beatrice actually think, it's my opinion.

And as far as I know there have never been any "sources" to say that Beatrice and Eugenine are desperately trying to get their parents back together.
 
Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? ;) These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice. :flowers:
Actually, we could say the same of you. You seem to know them very well by your previous comment on here.
 
No, although I think that would be preferable. NOT to suggest that I am cursing his prior wife into her grave, but having her continue the dog-in-the-manger routine is so tiresome.

How about "his prior wife has been relocated and is under adult supervision?"

Actually you were making up a list of what would be needed.. in a wife for Andrew and I just presumed you meant Andrew too. For Andrew to marry again as a royal with his mother's permission, he'd have to be a widower.

Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? ;) These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice. :flowers:

Actually she's taught me lot and I follow her posts whenever I can.

The Duchess of York is a title and means that she is married to the Duke of York. Sarah, Duchess of York is a courtesy style. Mostly denoting that she is a former wife of the Duke of York.

Just as Diana, Princess of Wales is a courtesy style of a divorced wife of the Prince of Wales. It may even surprise you to know that actually Camilla is The Princess of Wales because she is married to The Prince of Wales. She has chosen to be styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall of her own choice. Wherever you hear of someone saying Princess Diana, that's a title she has never had in her lifetime. You've heard I think of Princess Michael of Kent? She married Prince Michael but when she married him, she took his titles and styles. She is not a Princess in her own right but is Princess Michael. While Diana was married to the PoW, she was HRH The Princess of Wales but never Princess Diana. Sarah when married to Andrew was HRH The Duchess of York and I believe also was entitled to be called The Princess Andrew. It does get confusing and its with this kind of thing that many on these forums know about and have taught me... and I appreciate it. There's a world of differences between titles and styles and I'm still trying to wrap them around the few remaining brain cells I have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew would have to be a widower?


Not really.

Anne has remarried and her ex-husband still lives at Gatcombe.

Charles mightn't have a living ex any more but Camilla does so that idea also doesn't work and they were involved in the break-up of both their previous marriages, which is why the Church of England wouldn't let them have a church wedding.
 
Not really.

Anne has remarried and her ex-husband still lives at Gatcombe.

Charles mightn't have a living ex any more but Camilla does so that idea also doesn't work and they were involved in the break-up of both their previous marriages, which is why the Church of England wouldn't let them have a church wedding.

There is a reason why I believe that Andrew would have to be a widower to marry again with his mother's permission.

Anne remarried in the church of Scotland as a divorcee is common knowledge. Its also common knowledge that if she had a child from the second marriage,any issue of the female line, the succession to the throne is not an issue.

Its true Charles and Camille married civilly and the marriage was blessed by the CoE with the Queen in attendance. But there again you have to look at the ages of the two that married. I believe it was Charles at 57 and Camilla at 58? Once again, although remotely possible, the chances of a male child being born to this couple and in line for the throne would be a bookie's dream. If I do recall correctly, Camilla did have a hysterectomy around that time period also.. so scratch all bets.

With Andrew its totally different. Although he is divorced and his first wife is very much alive and as we all know... still in his life, the chances for the Queen to give permission for him to marry again I believe would be very slim. Why? What's the difference between Anne, Charles and Andrew? A big one. He could marry lets say for a lack of an example.. Paris Hilton. And they could and might produce a son. That son would be in line for the throne. <My grandfather was 57 when my father was born and near 60 when my uncle was born>... talk about randy old goats!

Andrew's son then by his second marriage would go ahead in the line for the throne over the girls he had by his first wife. As I don't believe the CoE will marry a royal divorced man to anyone (jump in here and correct me.. I don't know the CoE at all) , wouldn't that put the son by the second wife in a position where it would be questioned?

I know I ramble but this is why I suggested that Andrew would never get his mother's permission to marry again unless he was a widower.
 
Lumutqueen, you sound like you know Their Highnesses pretty well, which I doubt. Am I right? ;) These forums can be really hurtful sometimes, so I suggest you study your sources better next time. This is a friendly advice. :flowers:

The topic is "A Wife for Prince Andrew" and we are discussing alternatives to his prior and much disgraced wife. There are no "accusations" against the ex-wife here. Perhaps you have your threads confused.

Now, back to Andrew.
 
There is a reason why I believe that Andrew would have to be a widower to marry again with his mother's permission.

Anne remarried in the church of Scotland as a divorcee is common knowledge. Its also common knowledge that if she had a child from the second marriage,any issue of the female line, the succession to the throne is not an issue.

Its true Charles and Camille married civilly and the marriage was blessed by the CoE with the Queen in attendance. But there again you have to look at the ages of the two that married. I believe it was Charles at 57 and Camilla at 58? Once again, although remotely possible, the chances of a male child being born to this couple and in line for the throne would be a bookie's dream. If I do recall correctly, Camilla did have a hysterectomy around that time period also.. so scratch all bets.

With Andrew its totally different. Although he is divorced and his first wife is very much alive and as we all know... still in his life, the chances for the Queen to give permission for him to marry again I believe would be very slim. Why? What's the difference between Anne, Charles and Andrew? A big one. He could marry lets say for a lack of an example.. Paris Hilton. And they could and might produce a son. That son would be in line for the throne. <My grandfather was 57 when my father was born and near 60 when my uncle was born>... talk about randy old goats!

Andrew's son then by his second marriage would go ahead in the line for the throne over the girls he had by his first wife. As I don't believe the CoE will marry a royal divorced man to anyone (jump in here and correct me.. I don't know the CoE at all) , wouldn't that put the son by the second wife in a position where it would be questioned?

I know I ramble but this is why I suggested that Andrew would never get his mother's permission to marry again unless he was a widower.


I don't see any problem with a son from a second marriage jumping ahead of the daughers from the first so long as the marriage was legal.

The CofE would have no problem with Andrew remarrying in a church in England unless the wife was somehow involved in the breakdown of the first marriage, which was why they wouldn't approve a church wedding for Charles and Camilla as their relationship contributed to the breakdowns of their two previous marriages. The same with Anne. She was involved with Tim during the ending of her marriage to Mark. In addition for Anne the church's stance was much stronger in the 1990s than it is now as it softened its stance on marrying of divorcees in the early 2000s saying that marriage for a divorced person was fine so long as the parties weren't seen as having contributed to the breakdown of the earlier marriage although that is also left up to the individual minister.

Any child of Andrew's legitimately born, whether male or female, would be in line to the throne with no problems at all. The fact that his first wife is still alive has no bearing on that at all. Succession to the throne is automatic so long as the child is born to a legitimately married couple.
 
There is a reason why I believe that Andrew would have to be a widower to marry again with his mother's permission.

... why I suggested that Andrew would never get his mother's permission to marry again unless he was a widower.

With the Duchess of Cornwall having a living husband & The Princess Royal having a living husband, and both of those marriages having had the Queen's approbation, there is nothing in my opinion that bars Andrew from seeking out a second wife.

Preferably one who is additive and not dilutive, as we say in our business.
 
My fave thread

Thank you everyone for putting some new life back into this thread. Prince Albert of Monaco has recently become engaged to a charming lady, which increases my hope that there could be someone special out there for Prince Andrew. Of course it would have to be someone that met our criteria and many thanks NotAPretender for your contributions.
 
"I would especially enjoy seeing him marry someone not necessarily of 100% white heritage."

Anyone in mind???
 
Hang on! Bertie and Osipi, did not the Queen change the line of succession after she made Anne Princess Royal so women would inherit directly and not after there was male issue?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. :flowers:


Kitty Atlanta, TONS darling, though I don't know if some would be considered "suitable" by the BRF. Halle Berry comes to mind as she is such a gorgeous creature!
Sade, she might be too old.
The Indian gal who plays Divia on Royal Pains is a stunner.
These women are all strong, gorgeous and Russo is soooo envious of their beautiful skin!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom