Did Charles and Andrew marry against type?

[marmi]

The topic of the thread is "types" - and they have been addressed, but what about Diana's age (when she was married) - I'm in the same age bracket, and sure, there are a few couples that I know of who are engaged/married at 20 but (and this will sound cynical) no-one expects the relationship to last. People change so much and are still discovering themselves - starting careers, travelling... There have been posts about Diana presenting hereself as a country girl, and questions and to the accuracy of this; but what I think is that it's perfectly possible that she simply changed - discovered new things, people etc Its normal. (Please note that I'm saying that I think its possible, not that I'm stating my opinion of what happened in any way - I simply dont feel that I know enough to give a definitive opinion (remember my age...)

 

[jcbcode99]

Marmi, you sound as if you are concerned we will attack you! Nothing at all to fear from us, I assure you.

I have made the same point and wondered the same thing myself--and I think there is some validity to what you suggest. In fact, there may be a whole lot of validity--but we'll never really know. Skydragon made an interesting post about Diana never liking Scotland when she visited her mother and that she did in fact live in a fashionable section of London, sooo.....it is hard to say. But, I will say that I say an interview with her where she said she believed from a young age that she was destined for great things and many have said that she had always had a crush on Charles.....so she may well have duped him. I hate the idea of Charles being duped by a 19 year old. I will say that on other threads that I do think she misrepresented herself early on the relationship and I will stand by what I said.
But, like you pointed out, that is a young age.

 

[marmi]

Not so much worried about being attacked - rather not wanting to get people up in arms!

I guess what it comes down to is that we'll never really know - Charles is unlikely to speak about it now, and Diana can't; so all we can do is exactly what we are - discussing, guessing, etc

 

[GlitteringTiaras]

Then randy Andrew who had a bevy of startlets and good lookers in his black book married the country girl kinda klutz that Sarah was. Right now he's dating Angie Everheart, who is a blond beauty starlet who is much more the type of woman I expected him with in the first place.

Wait? Woah?! What?!!

I've been sleeping under a rock when it comes to news about Andrew, but I had no idea he is dating her. She dated Howard Stern for a year. Prior to that she was apparently dating Prince Albert then she moved on to Joe Pesci then onto some other older man. Angie is also known as F-list actress whose direct to video movies also play late night on Cinemax (if you know what I am talking about...)

Back on topic...

Going against ones traditional type the outcome tends to be grim, and in the case of Charles and Andrew, well, they confirmed what many believe. Sometimes opposites don't work.

I believe, Sarah was Andrew's true match, even though she doesn't seem to be his type physically. Unfortunately, things didn't work out, but they do seem to have a fantastic relationship post-divorce.

Regarding Charles, I dunno... he should have married Camilla decades ago.

 

[TheTruth]

So, would that make Diana a "cadette" ?
I just couldn't resist!

Well in fact she is (IMO). They cheated and I'm not a Di fan who thinks he's the only cad in the couple. Diana had numerous lovers and today she's still (globally) the one who is considered as the victim. IMO, they were two desperate souls with no possible escape. But the worse is that with being overwhelmed by their own sadness, they didn't pay attention to what William and Harry would say about them sleeping in their lovers bed and having a row every time they spoke to each other.

 

[ysbel]

He had his life, she made a very poor attempt at trying to attract him and then, I think, she was destroying herself in her anger. That is the real pity. She allowed her anger at him and the siutation she was in, to run her life. She probably justfied everything from that anger, which lead to a very sad ending. No one of us, has the right to judge how and what she felt when she made these foolish decisions.

I agree, I think if he married Camilla he might have been satisfied. But he didn't, and, yes, he is a cad. He qualifies very well.

[bolding is mine]

Countess, I am a bit curious your criteria for judging people. You've exhorted to people not to judge Diana for one reason or another and then you turn around and have no problems judging Charles.

I have no problem with judging others, I do it all the time and I offer no apologies for it. What strains a person's credibility with the group is when one person exhorts the rest of the group to give someone a break and that we don't have the right to judge then they seem to forget their previous aversion to judging when the target of judgment changes.

 

[ysbel]

I'm fairly sure that if Charles had married Camilla, he wouldn't have been looking for a young, glamorous mistress. He seemed to me to have more in common with George VI than with Edward VII.

BTW I'm not necessarily advocating this scenario of course but just thought I'd share it as another example of someone else thinking that Charles married against type.

 

[ysbel]

Wait? Woah?! What?!!

I've been sleeping under a rock when it comes to news about Andrew, but I had no idea he is dating her. She dated Howard Stern for a year.

Yes its on and off and I don't know how much of it is on right now. He took her to Beatrice's 18th birthday party.

 

[yvr girl]

It's off now

Yes its on and off and I don't know how much of it is on right now. He took her to Beatrice's 18th birthday party.

She's engaged to someone else.

 

[jcbcode99]

Good--I just can't see Angie as the next Duchess of York.

 

[COUNTESS]

I have judged both. When Diana married Charles, she believed in happily ever after. She was very young. She was very foolish. I was married to my first husband at that age. He was 27, so a great deal of age between us. I knew nothing and he was kind, patient and loving. We had a wonderful marriage for 28 years, until he died suddenly. In retrospect, I was an idiot, as was Diana, but my husband was loving and unselfish, so we were able to build a great relationship. I remarried and now an married to a man for 17 years. You see it takes two people to make a relationship, but sometimes one has to carry the ball for a while. Diana wasn't a cadette. She married in good faith. Charles had his side dish ready and waiting. He carried her picture. How many woman would like their husbands to carry their "supposedly former lovers" picture. Diana overheard him tell Camilla he would always love her. Her wore her cufflinks. Come on. Pardon me. Charles had found his soulmate in Camilla and should have married her. He did marry against type. He needed and could not give. He needed a giver.

 

[Skydragon]

A perfect example of what you just said is the movie Fatal Attraction.

Glenn Close in that movie was a one night stand!

 

[Skydragon]

I have judged both. When Diana married Charles, she believed in happily ever after. She was very young. She was very foolish....... Diana wasn't a cadette. She married in good faith.

Not if she encouraged Charles to believe she enjoyed all the things he did.

Charles had his side dish ready and waiting. He carried her picture. How many woman would like their husbands to carry their "supposedly former lovers" picture. Diana overheard him tell Camilla he would always love her. Her wore her cufflinks. Come on.

That is only according to Diana and probably far from the truth.

 

[ysbel]

Diana wasn't a cadette. She married in good faith. Charles had his side dish ready and waiting. He carried her picture. How many woman would like their husbands to carry their "supposedly former lovers" picture. Diana overheard him tell Camilla he would always love her. Her wore her cufflinks. Come on. Pardon me. Charles had found his soulmate in Camilla and should have married her. He did marry against type. He needed and could not give. He needed a giver.

Thanks for explaining Countess. Your stance of judging may have been a bit clearer if you hadn't made the exhortation not to judge Diana but I agree that both parties can be judged and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

Are you open to perhaps the possibility that Diana couldn't face the reality that she and Charles married against type and so she later moved up the time of the affair to indicate that Charles had always had Camilla when in fact its very possible that he and Camilla weren't having an affair till later? Rumours about Charles and Camilla having an affair really only started after Harry was born and other things that were going on in the marriage were coming to light pretty soon after they happened although the press at that time wanted to put an innocent spin on things.

Can you imagine that Diana may have seen the cufflinks in a drawer after Harry was born and said to herself, oh so they've been going behind my back all this time and later imagining to herself that she saw the cufflinks on the boat on their honeymoon? The reason I say this is that around the time she taped her conversations of Camilla being there at the wedding, she also complained that the royal family never let her choose an engagement ring a story which has later been discredited by several sources. Do you entertain the possibility that when Diana divulged this that she was thoroughly disgusted with both Charles and his family for whatever reasons and its possible that she exaggerated the hurts and the calumnies in her mind so that a third party who wasn't there may do well to not take some of her accusations at face value?

I think you were incredibly lucky to find such a lovely, caring man who would compensate for your drawbacks when you first married at 18, but do you really think that a man who cannot or won't compensate for a partner's drawbacks is by definition a cad?

Are you perhaps open to the possibility that Charles had had some great friends in Camilla and Kanga and wanted to have for his wife a nice English rose he could protect and then found out later that he wasn't cut out for the protecting role but what he really needed for a wife was a loyal friend? The reason that I say this is that Charles when people were pushing on him to get a relationship with Caroline said he preferred the simple English rose as his bride and when he was younger he seemed to enjoy the hero worship relationship he had with his younger brothers when they were boys. This of course fell out when they got older but Charles (yes the fool) seemed to like the hero worship he got from his brothers and so he may have thought that's what he wanted in a wife.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just throwing out some other possibilities.

 

[COUNTESS]

Oh, there are a plethora of possibilities. Skydraggon, yes, she said she liked this or that and maybe she lied and maybe she thought she might. When you are 19 you really have very little foresight. I use myself as that guide to naivete and stupidity at that age. You really know nothing. Secondly, the picture, etc., you have judged that Diana lied, so nothing more can be said. Charles was raised to get, basically, what he wants. I, believe, he wanted a wife that could give him all the things he is short on or feels he was shorted. Mothering was one of those things. Yet, he picked a veritable child to marry. He may have been attracted to her looks, but she was no smater then than later on. Perhaps, he couldn't envision that the public would adore her more than he. He after all was the prince of Wales. In many ways, he probably is not to blame, as I think he wanted something else and ended up with something he could not handle nor cared to handle. It is all a pity.

 

[ysbel]

as I think he wanted something else and ended up with something he could not handle nor cared to handle. It is all a pity.

That is true. My feeling at the time of the marriage was that Charles didn't know what he wanted.

Its amazing; so many of the marriages I see now, the wife is definitely the stronger of the two but the husbands don't like to admit that. Its somewhat like expecting a man to ask for directions. Even if they're lost, they don't ask because they don't like admitting a weakness! It seems that a lot of guys like to think of themselves as protectors but what they really want is for someone to take care of them.

Charles didn't appear to show that he needed mothering before his marriage. It looked like his relationship to his mother was good; it was the relationship with his father that was so bad.

But I think the Royal Family in general was very un-self-aware of what they were and what they needed vis-a-vis the non Royal world and when they started marrying with commoners this self-deception became all too apparent. One of the queen's courtiers later said that he thought Sarah was a delightful girl but that she would never do well as a Princess. People had mentioned some things about Sarah's past like her living with her earlier boyfriend and her financial difficulties but the Royal Family actually thought that were getting modern and moving with the times by letting Sarah in their midst.

I think with Diana you could say her young age was a factor in her self-deception and with Charles, his sheltered life as a royal was a factor in his own self-deception. But it does seem like what they thought they wanted from a partner at the outset wasn't what they really wanted which was why I was so curious as to them marrying against type and so the only good solution that could have come from it was if they both valued each other in their public roles enough that they could let each other seek what they needed in private. Its not a solution that I would have chosen but I've seen couples do it.

 

[Al_bina]

The French do a better job of exploring unexpected attractions

A perfect example of what you just said is the movie Fatal Attraction.

In my very personal opinion, the better example will be the French film “Trop belle pour toi” (Too beautiful for you), in which a successful car dealer was attracted to a plain looking secretary instead of his stunning wife. The wife approached the mistress in hotel and asked her, “What is so special about you?” The answer was “There is nothing special about me, I just give him peace” [it is Russian translation]. It seems to defy all reason, how this frumpy, dumpy woman with eyes that caress lures this man from elegant wife.

 

[Skydragon]

Oh, there are a plethora of possibilities. Skydraggon, yes, she said she liked this or that and maybe she lied and maybe she thought she might. When you are 19 you really have very little foresight. I use myself as that guide to naivete and stupidity at that age. You really know nothing. Secondly, the picture, etc., you have judged that Diana lied, so nothing more can be said.

Very many 18-20 year olds married older men back in the 70's - 80's and are still happily married. Diana came from a very broken home, so knew the problems she might face if and when she married. I knew at 16 that I didn't much care for London, I certainly knew at 18 what I liked and what I didn't. Because Diana came from a broken home, it wouldn't have mattered how much reassurance she got from her husband, she would probably have been suspicious of the smallest thing. Some people are naturally like that, jealous for no reason, needing constant reassurance, suspicious of 5 minutes unaccounted for. At first it is probably easy to say 'don't be silly', 'of course I love you', 'of course you did well' etc, but I should imagine even a saint would get fed up with it after a while and in that 2 minutes pause while one thinks of a reply that will not cause a scene, it can appear an excuse is being thought up, thus confirming that something is going on - talk about walking on a tightrope.

I recall having the misrepresentation type of conversation before on here, where I asked if it was the right thing to do, to pretend an interest to get the man and very many people said they had done it, it was an acceptable thing to do. To me if you can't be honest at the start of a relationship, there is very little long term hope.

 

[COUNTESS]

Well, Skydraggon, I am glad you knew all that you wished at 18, many don't. I found wisom grows with age and experience. Yes, many people married at 19 and are still married and many or not. None faced the many vargaries that life held for Charles and Diana. I came from a wonderful, loving household, so, perhaps, that is what gave me stability throughout the years. Diana did not. She knew the pitfalls of her parents marriage to a degree, but how would she not be her insecure self? And marrying a person who said "whatever love is", is hardly comforting. I, think, in all marriages you grow and learn from one another, if you care. So, you may think you like something and it turns out you hate it. So, you find compromise. Charles is not a compromiser, nor do I think was Diana.

Al Bina, you are on the mark, again. You give an excellent anology. Yes, I, believe, Camilla gives Charles peace.

 

[Skydragon]

I found wisom grows with age and experience.

Not necessarily!

 

[jcbcode99]

Well, once again a forum has turned from the topic at hand and generalized it to where the breakdown occured in Charles and Diana's relationship. I think it is pretty simple, when it comes down to it. She wanted to marry the PoW--so she did. It ended up not being the fairy tale marriage she wanted--blame it on personalities, age, whatever--but the relationship did not work. Each had affairs; well, Charles resumed an affair with his first love and Diana began a string of affairs. Later, rather than work on creating a friendship for the sake of the children, the War began and accusations began to fly.
I will say this--in everything I have read--I've not seen any evidence that shows where Charles lied about something. Diana, on the other hand, has been shown to have lied often to suit her needs. We can attempt to blame this on a broken home or whatever, but I simply blame it on the person. Let's face it--we all know it is wrong to lie--if we choose to lie anyway we will reap what we sow. For this reason, the proof that she lied often, I have to say that I do think that she misrepresented herself to Charles--because she wanted to marry him--regardless. Now, at 19 it is hard to not blame the child for seeing the world through rose-colored glasses--because I do believe she loved him with that puppy-love passion we have all felt at some point--and therefore, she was willing to do whatever to secure her lover's interest. I can't really fault her for that--but she did grow up a country girl, and I'm sure Charles believed that she loved that life. She outgrew it--but for Charles, country life was in many ways his escape from his public life. And, Diana LOVED her public life. In public she was a goddess--in the country, she was just Diana, schlepping around. She didn't want that. Charles did.

Of course, it would be naive of us to assume that was the one reason for the breakdown of the marriage. So, in comes Camilla--the evil, hated Camilla. This I have trouble understanding--why is Camilla so hated and Diana's indiscretions ignored, and passed off as occuring because she was lonely. Perhaps Charles was lonely and that was why he and Camilla's frienship continued and maybe, just maybe Diana strayed first and then Charles went his way. Diana has been known to changed a timeline. I'm not saying she did, but I am saying she has done it enough to make one wonder exactly what happened. But,regardless of how it went down, affairs happened. What I don't understand is why is Diana still considered innocent, even though her lies and manipulations have been proven? It makes no sense.

 

[lexi4]

In my very personal opinion, the better example will be the French film “Trop belle pour toi” (Too beautiful for you), in which a successful car dealer was attracted to a plain looking secretary instead of his stunning wife. The wife approached the mistress in hotel and asked her, “What is so special about you?” The answer was “There is nothing special about me, I just give him peace” [it is Russian translation]. It seems to defy all reason, how this frumpy, dumpy woman with eyes that caress lures this man from elegant wife.

Interesting comments that I think hold true in this situation. What happened between Diana and Charles happened. It happens to many couples, I guess we don't expect it of what appears to be a fairy tale marriage. I don't think it matters who cheated first. The marriage was prbably doomed from the start. I think it is obvious now that Charles deeply loved/loves Camilla.
Lexi

 

[ysbel]

In my very personal opinion, the better example will be the French film “Trop belle pour toi” (Too beautiful for you), in which a successful car dealer was attracted to a plain looking secretary instead of his stunning wife. The wife approached the mistress in hotel and asked her, “What is so special about you?” The answer was “There is nothing special about me, I just give him peace” [it is Russian translation]. It seems to defy all reason, how this frumpy, dumpy woman with eyes that caress lures this man from elegant wife.

That's a great movie with Gerard Depardieu, Josiane Balasko, and Carole Bouquet. I loved it.

 

[ysbel]

Well, once again a forum has turned from the topic at hand and generalized it to where the breakdown occured in Charles and Diana's relationship..

I don't think so. I asked a question about Charles and Andrew marrying against type and pretty much all the responses have alluded to that. Its inevitable that when talking about marrying against type attention will focus on how this would have affected the breakup.

And I've gotten some answers. I think after hearing from all of you that Charles didn't know what his type was. I do remember reading he was a hero to his younger brothers when they were younger and there is a touching scene in the 1969 documentary that shows him playing a cello for a very young Prince Edward. In the seventies, he stressed the English rose and turned down several girls for being too exotic looking. Diana on some level probably didn't know what type she was either. She did start out as the humble shy English rose but she ended up preferring the city and i daresay she did end up preferring her public to life in the country and with the Royal Family. I do think she also preferred a situation where she was the center of attention rather than just one of a group although she may not have known that when she met Charles. I do think that Diana correctly knew at the beginning that she needed to be taken care of and Charles gave the appearance of a kindly older gentleman who was touched that a young girl would place faith in him.

With Andrew and Sarah, I still think there is some mystery. I can buy the fact that Andrew changed; his older self is far less a playboy than his younger persona and it just may be that he outgrew his Randy Andy image and became more stable whereas Sarah remained a bit wild. So when Andrew settled down, I imagine that Sarah was a bit taken aback and after Andrew settled down, he may have been embarassed by some of Sarah's more outlandish behavior. I could see him being attracted to her wildness at first but like I said, a guy who is a prince and a good looker and a charming personality just doesn't tend to go for women that look and act as inelegantly as Sarah.

My next question is: OK we know why they messed up and thought they would be a good match but why didn't their families stop them? My father's favorite line about Earl Spencer was that he must have had rocks in his head to let the 33 year old prince marry his 19 year old daughter.

 

[lexi4]

I don't think so. I asked a question about Charles and Andrew marrying against type and pretty much all the responses have alluded to that. Its inevitable that when talking about marrying against type attention will focus on how this would have affected the breakup.

And I've gotten some answers. I think after hearing from all of you that Charles didn't know what his type was. I do remember reading he was a hero to his younger brothers when they were younger and there is a touching scene in the 1969 documentary that shows him playing a cello for a very young Prince Edward. In the seventies, he stressed the English rose and turned down several girls for being too exotic looking. Diana on some level probably didn't know what type she was either. She did start out as the humble shy English rose but she ended up preferring the city and i daresay she did end up preferring her public to life in the country and with the Royal Family. I do think she also preferred a situation where she was the center of attention rather than just one of a group although she may not have known that when she met Charles. I do think that Diana correctly knew at the beginning that she needed to be taken care of and Charles gave the appearance of a kindly older gentleman who was touched that a young girl would place faith in him.

With Andrew and Sarah, I still think there is some mystery. I can buy the fact that Andrew changed; his older self is far less a playboy than his younger persona and it just may be that he outgrew his Randy Andy image and became more stable whereas Sarah remained a bit wild. So when Andrew settled down, I imagine that Sarah was a bit taken aback and after Andrew settled down, he may have been embarassed by some of Sarah's more outlandish behavior. I could see him being attracted to her wildness at first but like I said, a guy who is a prince and a good looker and a charming personality just doesn't tend to go for women that look and act as inelegantly as Sarah.

My next question is: OK we know why they messed up and thought they would be a good match but why didn't their families stop them? My father's favorite line about Earl Spencer was that he must have had rocks in his head to let the 33 year old prince marry his 19 year old daughter.

Ok. Here's my question. Do you honestly think that any of their parents could have stopped them?

 

[jcbcode99]

Ok. Here's my question. Do you honestly think that any of their parents could have stopped them?

I do--I think that Charles was presssured into a marriage--Diana has also said that she wanted to call it off but couldn't because her "face was on the tea towels"--so, I think there was trepidation on both their parts. If Charles' parents and Diana's family hadn't forced the match......history could have been quite different!

 

[lexi4]

I do--I think that Charles was presssured into a marriage--Diana has also said that she wanted to call it off but couldn't because her "face was on the tea towels"--so, I think there was trepidation on both their parts. If Charles' parents and Diana's family hadn't forced the match......history could have been quite different!

Ok. Was Charles pressured into a marriage or the marriage to Diana? I am sure he was pressured. Isn't it part of his duty to produce and heir?

 

[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!

 

[Roslyn]

Ok. Was Charles pressured into a marriage or the marriage to Diana? I am sure he was pressured. Isn't it part of his duty to produce and heir?

Interesting question. The answer is "Yes" to both limbs, I think, because 1. he was under pressure at his age to marry a suitable person and breed, and 2. Diana was Johnny-on-the-Spot.

 

[COUNTESS]

I don't think so. I asked a question about Charles and Andrew marrying against type and pretty much all the responses have alluded to that. Its inevitable that when talking about marrying against type attention will focus on how this would have affected the breakup.

And I've gotten some answers. I think after hearing from all of you that Charles didn't know what his type was. I do remember reading he was a hero to his younger brothers when they were younger and there is a touching scene in the 1969 documentary that shows him playing a cello for a very young Prince Edward. In the seventies, he stressed the English rose and turned down several girls for being too exotic looking. Diana on some level probably didn't know what type she was either. She did start out as the humble shy English rose but she ended up preferring the city and i daresay she did end up preferring her public to life in the country and with the Royal Family. I do think she also preferred a situation where she was the center of attention rather than just one of a group although she may not have known that when she met Charles. I do think that Diana correctly knew at the beginning that she needed to be taken care of and Charles gave the appearance of a kindly older gentleman who was touched that a young girl would place faith in him.

With Andrew and Sarah, I still think there is some mystery. I can buy the fact that Andrew changed; his older self is far less a playboy than his younger persona and it just may be that he outgrew his Randy Andy image and became more stable whereas Sarah remained a bit wild. So when Andrew settled down, I imagine that Sarah was a bit taken aback and after Andrew settled down, he may have been embarassed by some of Sarah's more outlandish behavior. I could see him being attracted to her wildness at first but like I said, a guy who is a prince and a good looker and a charming personality just doesn't tend to go for women that look and act as inelegantly as Sarah.

My next question is: OK we know why they messed up and thought they would be a good match but why didn't their families stop them? My father's favorite line about Earl Spencer was that he must have had rocks in his head to let the 33 year old prince marry his 19 year old daughter.

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.