Did Charles and Andrew marry against type?

[Russophile]

I think Charles married against his "type" in that Diana, though beautiful, wasn't very bright. Though she got very clever later on, she still wasn't interested in the intellectual pursuits that Charles had.
Andrew, well, I don't know about that. I did think they were "suited" but when Sarah cracked up, well, that showed she was weak.
I have read in several biographies on the Royal Family that Charles was concerned about the mettle of his future spouse, they had to have it as they would be in the spot light for the rest of their life.
Andrew is still forming his life. Charles had his life and duties pretty much mapped out for him. Now Andrew is into the International Business Trade and his life and tastes, I'm sure are changing.
Would they (the families) have stopped the wedding? Not on your life! Talk about publicity! They were THE events of the century to attend!

[Lakshmi]

I think that Andrew and Sarah were quite good match. Aren't they in good realtion even after divorce?
As for Diana and Charles, it was unfortunate combination. I think Diana was the weaker part of that union. She was way too young to marry into royal family, not very educated, not too ambitious to get more education. She was a beautiful flower, people loved her, her style etc. but it was not enough to bring Charles happines. Camilla is a perfect match.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

I think that he was pressured into a marriage with Diana--she was from a good family, had royal blood (arguably more than Charles!) and there was a strong family connection. Both families had orchestrated this match--Diana's grandmother was the Queen Mum's lady-in-waiting!

The Spencers had for years, tried to advance themselves higher up the food chain, IMO, they drummed it in to Diana's head for years that this was the ultimate goal. I also believe it was the reason that Fermoy testified against her daughter at the custody hearing.

I did read a story that the media pursued Diana in a bid to 'force' Charles to propose. I will have a look for the article, perhaps that was why Diana was so close to Edwards & Kay?

With Andrew and Sarah, I think they would have made better friends than marriage partners, but in those days () it would have been frowned upon, hence they fell into the 'lets get married, all our friends are doing it' brigade.

[Madame Royale]

Judging by the array of photographs of Prince Andrew, Duke of York strewn across Sarah, Duchess of York's Manhattan apartment, I think the two are very good friends. Infact, they have never presented themselves otherwise...

[kimebear]

I definitely think Charles and Diana were both pressured into the marriage. Charles more so than Diana, but both nevertheless. What looked attractive beforehand became less so as the day approached. Andrew and Sarah, I don't know about. I believe that the Queen was getting a little impatient to see Andrew settle down and at the beginning she was quite fond of Sarah. If it hadn't been a royal marriage they most likely would still be married. Sarah was not cut out for the constant scrutiny that comes with being a member of the royal family. Nor was she prepared for the loneliness that can accompany being married to man in the military. It can certainly be argued that they have the world's most amicable divorce. Andrew gave an interview just the other day praising Sarah for being the one that keeps their daughters grounded and down to earth. He also implied that royal life was not kind to her and I think he feels a great deal of guilt about that.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Actually, Ysbel, you are right. But their families encouraged them That is the really upsetting thing. Diana was to young to marry someone where the responsilbilities and life change was that dramatic. Her father should have cautioned her not to do this. His parents should have looked at the big picture. But none of them cared, except to get what they felt needed to be done, done. The Spencers felt it was a feather in their cap and the Windsors thought they got a beautiful, docile, breeding machine. Chaste, that was their criteria and aritocratic. The best of all worlds. Everyone would be happy, except the bride and groom. Charles was just as much a victim as Diana in this charade. His age gave him the advantage of being a little more worldly, but he could not stand up against his father, least his mother.

I totally agree with this. For the Spencers it was a probably the dream of generations; a Spencer will sit on the British throne. Spencer blood will forever run through every remaining British monarch (for as long as there are British monarchs). And like Countess pointed out, the BRF found someone without a past to rise up one day and bit them in the arse (if only they could have foreseen what did happen), she was of the right breeding and blood and she was quite pretty. It was a match made in aristocratic heaven.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Glenn Close in that movie was a one night stand!

She was the onenight stand that went bonkers. I'm sure alot of men thought twice about having affairs after seeing this movie.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

She was the onenight stand that went bonkers. I'm sure alot of men thought twice about having affairs after seeing this movie.

It actually was a one-weekend stand. I have the movie. And I'm not sad to say that I'm glad she gets it in the end. Though Michael Douglas was lucky Ann Archer didn't turn the gun on him as well!!!
But comparing Diana to that, though I've read she was bad enough, or rather childish--those phone calls to what was his name Oliver Hoare?? is a little much.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Russophile

But comparing Diana to that, though I've read she was bad enough, or rather childish--those phone calls to what was his name Oliver Hoare?? is a little much.

I'm quite sure Diana would never have hurt a bunny and she certainly didn't deserve a bullet, but I'm also sure that there were times when Diana was in the throes of one of her famous tantrums that Charles wished she would just disappear into thin air and give him peace, and Oliver Hoare probably thought the same thing when it wasn't safe to answer the phone. She exhibited some behaviours that were a tad more than childish, and needed a lot of counselling, IMO.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Russophile

It actually was a one-weekend stand. I have the movie. And I'm not sad to say that I'm glad she gets it in the end. Though Michael Douglas was lucky Ann Archer didn't turn the gun on him as well!!!
But comparing Diana to that, though I've read she was bad enough, or rather childish--those phone calls to what was his name Oliver Hoare?? is a little much.

Actually its curious that you say that you're glad she got it in the end. The movie was originally cut to show more of Close's emotional turmoil and the original ending had her committing suicide as a result of her world crashing in on her so her emotional turmoil and her humanity was more evident in the original. I believe it was based on a European (maybe German) movie about an affair gone wrong.

However, audiences at the initial screening didn't want to understand the human nature of Glenn Close's character, they wanted someone evil they could hate and who the hero defeated in the end. So the directors changed the script and Michael Douglas killed her and became a hero although to my mind he was the only real jerk for starting it all and then realizing that Glenn Close was mental and not calling the authorities or mental health services. .

That's what I was saying about what Charles reputation would be if Camilla had been his wife and Diana his mistress. If Diana had been his mistress and she had made these harassing calls to Charles like she did with Oiliver Hoare, Diana, as a mistress, would have been villified by the public for harassing Charles even if she had had some of the same problems and hurts that make people now so undertstanding and sympathetic to her. In my mind, Charles would have been a real jerk who wanted his stable little wife and a little fun on the side without realizing the fun on the side had dangers and then getting mad and indignant when it turned on him. Diana would have gotten no sympathy in a situation like that although she may have deserved it more in that case because if Charles had seduced her to become his mistress, it would have only taken Charles himself to mislead a young, emotional unstable girl to something unsavoury for the two of them, however, for Charles to ask her to marry him, it required the assent of his family, her family, the government, the press, and the public's goodwill. It was a lot harder for Charles to pull the wool over Diana's eyes in that case because the whole whole was watching.

So there were a lot more opportunities for someone to say no to a royal marriage than it was for someone to say no to a clandestine affair.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Actually its curious that you say that you're glad she got it in the end. The movie was originally cut to show more of Close's emotional turmoil and the original ending had her committing suicide as a result of her world crashing in on her so her emotional turmoil and her humanity was more evident in the original. I believe it was based on a European (maybe German) movie about an affair gone wrong.

However, audiences at the initial screening didn't want to understand the human nature of Glenn Close's character, they wanted someone evil they could hate and who the hero defeated in the end. So the directors changed the script and Michael Douglas killed her and became a hero although to my mind he was the only real jerk for starting it all and then realizing that Glenn Close was mental and not calling the authorities or mental health services. .

That's what I was saying about what Charles reputation would be if Camilla had been his wife and Diana his mistress. If Diana had been his mistress and she had made these harassing calls to Charles like she did with Oiliver Hoare, Diana, as a mistress, would have been villified by the public for harassing Charles even if she had had some of the same problems and hurts that make people now so undertstanding and sympathetic to her. In my mind, Charles would have been a real jerk who wanted his stable little wife and a little fun on the side without realizing the fun on the side had dangers and then getting mad and indignant when it turned on him. Diana would have gotten no sympathy in a situation like that although she may have deserved it more in that case because if Charles had seduced her to become his mistress, it would have only taken Charles himself to mislead a young, emotional unstable girl to something unsavoury for the two of them, however, for Charles to ask her to marry him, it required the assent of his family, her family, the government, the press, and the public's goodwill. It was a lot harder for Charles to pull the wool over Diana's eyes in that case because the whole whole was watching.

So there were a lot more opportunities for someone to say no to a royal marriage than it was for someone to say no to a clandestine affair.

I thought Ann Archer's character killed her. I viewed it that it put her - the cheated-on wife - in control of the whole situation at the end. The irony! As for Diana being that psychotic, no way. I think she was immature and naive when it came to relationships. If you look at her history, she behaves more like a love-struck teenager in a mad crush than a mature 'together' woman. I also think her parents horrible relationship and the subsequent abandonment (loss of custody) by her mother affected her view on relationships.

[jcbcode99]

I agree with Bella--I think Diana had some issues, she was immature and made bad decisons--was a bit spoiled and impulsive...but I don't think she would have boiled a bunny. Not her style.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Russophile

It actually was a one-weekend stand. I have the movie. And I'm not sad to say that I'm glad she gets it in the end. Though Michael Douglas was lucky Ann Archer didn't turn the gun on him as well!!!
But comparing Diana to that, though I've read she was bad enough, or rather childish--those phone calls to what was his name Oliver Hoare?? is a little much.

I wasn't comparing Diana to Glenn Close's character. Its just the whole entire situation with Charles, Diana, and Camilla reminded me of the movie...

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

I wasn't comparing Diana to Glenn Close's character. Its just the whole entire situation with Charles, Diana, and Camilla reminded me of the movie...

Now see what happens when you do that? You get a GAZILLION other interpretations!! HA!

[ysbel]

For the record, I don't think Diana would have boiled a bunny but that wasn't my point.

Actually now I think the person that most reminds me of Diana was Katharine Howard in the Six Wives of Henry VIII thread.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by ysbel

For the record, I don't think Diana would have boiled a bunny but that wasn't my point.

Actually now I think the person that most reminds me of Diana was Katharine Howard in the Six Wives of Henry VIII thread.

But it makes a lovely rabbit stew!

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Now see what happens when you do that? You get a GAZILLION other interpretations!! HA!

And what some of us remember most about the film is the bunny.