The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Did Charles and Andrew marry against type? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/did-charles-and-andrew-marry-against-type-15694.html)

ysbel 02-01-2008 09:50 AM

Did Charles and Andrew marry against type?
 
I was always struck by the marriage choices that Charles and Andrew made and on appearances they chose women exactly opposite that I thought they'd choose.

First dowdy and rather prudish Charles chose a trophy wife, a stylish beauty with lots of glamour when he had previously dated the country girl horsey type. Right now he's married to Camilla who seems to fit him like a perfect glove.

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.

But their wives just didn't seem to go with them well. For Charles and Diana I can understand if the marriage was arranged but even then I'm stretched to understand why even in an arranged marriage Charles would agree to someone that was so different from the girls he was used to and liked. And Andrew, I have no idea what was the attraction with Sarah. They are still good friends now so there has got to be something there.

A lot of people thought that Andrew should have married Diana. I don't know maybe he knew some of the emotional problems that Diana had more than Charles did and that's what made him keep his distance but Diana and Andrew and Charles and Sarah looked like more natural couples to me.

I find it fascinating that not one but both brothers married against type and in different situations but with the same results.

BeatrixFan 02-01-2008 09:53 AM

I wouldn't say they married against type, just beneath themselves. And that always causes problems unless you're very very lucky and find someone like Camilla who always passed for a Princess of the realm when she wasn't.

Bella 02-01-2008 10:32 AM

Well, I think it's been reported that Diana wasn't really Charles' choice. He was supposedly pressured to marry and to marry her namely by his father. It seems there were alot of people involved in choosing the future Queen of England and mother to future monarchs. I highly doubt love had anything to do with it (at least on his part). He wanted to marry Camilla back when they were young and dating, but I guess his parents didn't feel she fit the bill. So she went off and married Tom PB. I agree, tho, that Camilla is perfect for him and they should have been allowed to marry all those years ago when they wanted to. Goes to show you, in this day and age, arranged marriages usually don't work.

As for Andrew, I think Sarah (in the beginning) seemed the ideal match for him. She was spontaneous and fun-loving and remember, it wasn't too long before they married that he was known as Randy Andy. Unfort. she turned out to be too fun-loving. I don't think she's beneath him. She's not titled but her family is very closely linked to the royals and the aristocracy. If she had behaved like a proper wife and had not cheated or become too loud and gawdy, no one would be saying things like she's beneath him. They're just basing that on her behavior.

TheTruth 02-01-2008 12:28 PM

Perhaps, if Diana had married Andrew she may have got used to royal life and all the stuff she found terrible in the royal circle. I don't know but I have the feeling that Andrew might have been able to know how to talk to her, present her things in a different way than Charles did. Although I'm not so sure about Charles and Sarah. I really don't know what to imagine if both had ended up together ...

Elspeth 02-01-2008 12:49 PM

When Charles and Diana married, she wasn't the trophy wife type; that didn't appear till later. She was the sort of upper-class leggy blonde he'd always seemed to be attracted to in the past, so that wasn't particularly surprising. And the story is that during their courtship she gave the impression of being a country-loving girl who shared his interests, and also during their courtship her empathy and nurturing characteristics were focused on him, which is something he's always seemed to need.

A lot of people at the time were concerned about the age difference and the fact it was reported that there were quite a few interests they didn't have in common and that they didn't have any mutual friends to speak of, but the true scale of the mismatch didn't become apparent for a few years.

I'm not sure about Andrew and Sarah; it sounds as though they were both on the rebound, which isn't a particularly safe state of affairs, but he seems to be the Queen's most extrovert and overtly rebellious son and might have been attracted to someone like Sarah who was so original and at least outwardly confident.

I think in these two cases, hindsight is playing a large part in our being able to see the scope of the problems, especially with Charles and Diana.

BeatrixFan 02-01-2008 01:22 PM

I think Sarah must have been Andrew proving a point that he could do what he liked. Quite literally in this case. Surely he wouldn't marry Sarah for her personality?

Mermaid1962 02-01-2008 02:03 PM

Andrew and Diana certainly would have been a beautiful couple to look at! I don't know whether she could have handled his time at sea any better than Sarah did, though.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 724306)
Perhaps, if Diana had married Andrew she may have got used to royal life and all the stuff she found terrible in the royal circle. I don't know but I have the feeling that Andrew might have been able to know how to talk to her, present her things in a different way than Charles did. Although I'm not so sure about Charles and Sarah. I really don't know what to imagine if both had ended up together ...


sirhon11234 02-01-2008 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 724250)
I was always struck by the marriage choices that Charles and Andrew made and on appearances they chose women exactly opposite that I thought they'd choose.

First dowdy and rather prudish Charles chose a trophy wife, a stylish beauty with lots of glamour when he had previously dated the country girl horsey type. Right now he's married to Camilla who seems to fit him like a perfect glove.

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.

But their wives just didn't seem to go with them well. For Charles and Diana I can understand if the marriage was arranged but even then I'm stretched to understand why even in an arranged marriage Charles would agree to someone that was so different from the girls he was used to and liked. And Andrew, I have no idea what was the attraction with Sarah. They are still good friends now so there has got to be something there.

A lot of people thought that Andrew should have married Diana. I don't know maybe he knew some of the emotional problems that Diana had more than Charles did and that's what made him keep his distance but Diana and Andrew and Charles and Sarah looked like more natural couples to me.

I find it fascinating that not one but both brothers married against type and in different situations but with the same results.

I read somewhere maybe on Royalty Insight, that Andrew was dissapointed when Diana chose to marry Charles.

jcbcode99 02-01-2008 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 724250)
First dowdy and rather prudish Charles

I have to say that I don't think this is an accurate description of Charles; he is sophisticated, old-fashioned, and charming.
That being said, I am in agreement with Elspeth who pointed out that Diana had represented herself as a country girl who liked country life--turns out, she did not care for it. Now, if that was an intentional move on her part--shame on her--but it could also have been that she was exactly that but after aging and maturing a bit she discovered she liked a city life better--I don't know, but 19/20 is not that old. Hindsight shows us that Charles and Diana were not each other's types in the middle and towards the end, but I do think it was more the age difference than anything else that did them in--she was still young and wanted to be young--he had done all of that and was ready to settle down and do his duty.

As for Andrew--Sarah may not have been supermodel material, but they seemed to really love each other and get on quite well. I think that sometimes who we fall in love with just surprises us. They're still friends--that says a lot.

As for Andrew being disappointed about Diana marrying Charles--I'm astounded! Was he in love with her? They may have made a bit better couple, but I'm not sure Diana would have been happy on a golf course!

TheTruth 02-01-2008 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 724384)
-SNIPPED-
As for Andrew being disappointed about Diana marrying Charles--I'm astounded! Was he in love with her? They may have made a bit better couple, but I'm not sure Diana would have been happy on a golf course!

Me too ! Although, if you think about it, it may be true because they both used to see each other when they were kids. It would have been less surprising to learn about Andrew marrying Diana than her with Charles, only IMO.

lexi4 02-01-2008 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 724259)
Well, I think it's been reported that Diana wasn't really Charles' choice. He was supposedly pressured to marry and to marry her namely by his father. It seems there were alot of people involved in choosing the future Queen of England and mother to future monarchs. I highly doubt love had anything to do with it (at least on his part). He wanted to marry Camilla back when they were young and dating, but I guess his parents didn't feel she fit the bill. So she went off and married Tom PB. I agree, tho, that Camilla is perfect for him and they should have been allowed to marry all those years ago when they wanted to. Goes to show you, in this day and age, arranged marriages usually don't work.

As for Andrew, I think Sarah (in the beginning) seemed the ideal match for him. She was spontaneous and fun-loving and remember, it wasn't too long before they married that he was known as Randy Andy. Unfort. she turned out to be too fun-loving. I don't think she's beneath him. She's not titled but her family is very closely linked to the royals and the aristocracy. If she had behaved like a proper wife and had not cheated or become too loud and gawdy, no one would be saying things like she's beneath him. They're just basing that on her behavior.

Interesting remarks. The issue of her cheating always puzzled me. It is not like she was the first and only Brittish Royal to cheat. It's part of the history of the monarchy.
Lexi

rmay286 02-01-2008 04:13 PM

Well, I do think Charles married against type, but not as drastically as it might seem. Diana was too young and naive for him, maybe, but I also agree that Diana was very sympathetic and supportive of him in the beginning and that seems to be something Charles deeply needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 724384)
I am in agreement with Elspeth who pointed out that Diana had represented herself as a country girl who liked country life--turns out, she did not care for it. Now, if that was an intentional move on her part--shame on her--but it could also have been that she was exactly that but after aging and maturing a bit she discovered she liked a city life better--I don't know, but 19/20 is not that old. Hindsight shows us that Charles and Diana were not each other's types in the middle and towards the end, but I do think it was more the age difference than anything else that did them in--she was still young and wanted to be young--he had done all of that and was ready to settle down and do his duty.

I also think the age difference, and Diana's inherent personality problems, were more significant than any other differences between them. Even if she wasn't a country girl at 19, Diana was still just a simple kindergarten teacher with a fairly low-key social life at that time...not a "trophy wife" or glamorous city woman.

Of course, Diana did seem to change as she grew older. Diana may have seemed to suit Charles on the surface, but clearly Camilla possesses the more genuine version of the character traits Charles is attracted to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 724384)
As for Andrew--Sarah may not have been supermodel material, but they seemed to really love each other and get on quite well. I think that sometimes who we fall in love with just surprises us. They're still friends--that says a lot.

As for Andrew being disappointed about Diana marrying Charles--I'm astounded! Was he in love with her? They may have made a bit better couple, but I'm not sure Diana would have been happy on a golf course!

:lol: I can't imagine Diana and Andrew marrying. Friends, maybe.

I don't have any problem understanding why Andrew fell in love with Sarah. Sure, he might have dated (and might still date) attractive supermodel types, but I'm sure many men are attracted to those types of women without wanting to marry them. I don't even mean that he just dated them for their looks. I think Andrew likes outgoing confident women and I'm sure many glamorous women are.

But I also think Andrew is a pretty down-to-earth family man at heart. I've read a number of times that his reputation for being wild was always a little exaggerated. He likes having fun but his interests are a little boring...mainly golf and helicopters. Now Sarah is different, she's obviously attracted to a fast glamorous lifestyle. But at the same time, she's a country girl. No matter how much time she spends among American celebrities I never get the sense that she quite fits in that world.

So I think Andrew became friends with Sarah (and remained friends with her) because she had the same straightfoward personality and earthy sense of humour as him. And I think he was attracted to her because at the same time, she's not exactly like him--she has a driven, passionate quality Andrew probably admires, because he's much more laid-back and unambitious.

Sarah's very much like Andrew in some ways and yet has much more intense personality. On one level he probably sees her as an equal and friend, and on another level, on a pedestal far above him. I don't know exactly how Andrew feels about Sarah now but it's pretty obvious he's never looked another woman seriously since her.

Bella 02-01-2008 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lexi4 (Post 724407)
Interesting remarks. The issue of her cheating always puzzled me. It is not like she was the first and only Brittish Royal to cheat. It's part of the history of the monarchy.
Lexi

Absolutely. Unfort. it's different when a man cheats than when a woman cheats. The whole double-sword thing. I know Sarah wasn't the first female member of the BRF to cheat on her spouse and she probably won't be the last. I think the problem w her situation was that she was (seemingly) so blatant about it, even pulling her young children along for a "family-like" vacation. And I think alot of ppl felt let down by her. She had been so well-liked, a "breath of fresh air", early on in her marriage and I think her eventual antics left ppl feeling they'd been somehow conned by her. IMO.

BeatrixFan 02-01-2008 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella (Post 724427)
Absolutely. Unfort. it's different when a man cheats than when a woman cheats. The whole double-sword thing. I know Sarah wasn't the first female member of the BRF to cheat on her spouse and she probably won't be the last. I think the problem w her situation was that she was (seemingly) so blatant about it, even pulling her young children along for a "family-like" vacation. And I think alot of ppl felt let down by her. She had been so well-liked, a "breath of fresh air", early on in her marriage and I think her eventual antics left ppl feeling they'd been somehow conned by her. IMO.

But people could forgive Sarah cheating. It was being a complete heffalump with no common sense they couldn't stomach.

TheTruth 02-01-2008 06:22 PM

After reflexion, I think Diana was not made for Royal life. Whether she had married Charles or Andrew, she would have been shattered by the rules and the protocol. She may have been a great support for Charles but she was as well a "weight" for him, mostly because of her emotional instability. He already had a tough time making his life simple, it wasn't Diana who could have helped him with that.

BeatrixFan 02-01-2008 07:28 PM

Never mind Charles marrying against type, I think Diana married against type. She wanted exactly that - fun. I think she felt she'd be whizzed round the world and be admired and adored. And she was - but not by her husband. I think Diana was a little too modern for Charles and inevitably, it was the downfall of the marriage.

jcbcode99 02-01-2008 08:31 PM

Getting back on target--sort of--I am intrigued by the whole Andrew being surprised that Diana was marrying Charles. One poster mentioned that growing up Andrew and Diana were a bit closer, so I guess he was surprised that she would want to be with someone they probably didn't spend much time with because of the age difference. I think that is valid--you never expect a playmate from your youth to marry your brother--that's kinda weird! But, I wonder if Diana would have done well with Andrew? I may be in the minority, but even though I am fairly critical of Sarah, I do think (based on their current relationship) that she was probably the perfect complement to Andrew's personality. I wonder if part of her insecurities during their marriage was that she would compare herself to his previous girlfriends and feel that she would come up short? If you measure based on looks alone, perhaps--but Sarah certainly proved a lot of people wrong on her wedding day-I have always contended that she made a more beautiful bride than Diana. What a gown!
Anyway--Charles probably thought he was ending up with someone similar to himself and in all honesty, he may have been remembering a younger Diana who may have regarded him with a hero-worship type of enchantment when they were younger; of course, people grow up. I don't think it was because he was self-centered or whiney --- those are adjectives that just do not suit him. He is quiet, contemplative, ernest, and thoughtful. Getting away from all that, though--I agree with our beloved and tolerant BeatrixFan who states that Charles didn't marry against type--Diana did. I think that is an accurate summation

ysbel 02-01-2008 09:33 PM

This thread went from 3 pages to 1 after I pruned out a particularly nasty fight.

If you see a post that makes you mad, contact one of the moderators and let us deal with it. These fights are appearing on Google searches and we really don't want to attract people who start fights more than necessary but if you show them a fight, they will come.

ysbel
British forums moderator

Skydragon 02-02-2008 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 724384)
I have to say that I don't think this is an accurate description of Charles; he is sophisticated, old-fashioned, and charming.
That being said, I am in agreement with Elspeth who pointed out that Diana had represented herself as a country girl who liked country life--turns out, she did not care for it. Now, if that was an intentional move on her part--shame on her--but it could also have been that she was exactly that but after aging and maturing a bit she discovered she liked a city life better--I don't know, but 19/20 is not that old.

I really think Diana hated country life, but it was going to be the only way to interest Charles. She moved to London as soon as she was able, she hated visiting her mother in Scotland (before she became involved with Charles), IMO.
Quote:

Hindsight shows us that Charles and Diana were not each other's types in the middle and towards the end, but I do think it was more the age difference than anything else that did them in--she was still young and wanted to be young--he had done all of that and was ready to settle down and do his duty.
I don't think they had enough time to get to know one another, before the engagement was announced. The press gleefully admit they pressured Charles into proposing and with both sets of relatives pushing as well, Charles gave in.
Quote:

As for Andrew being disappointed about Diana marrying Charles--I'm astounded! Was he in love with her? They may have made a bit better couple, but I'm not sure Diana would have been happy on a golf course!
Andrew probably knew Diana had far too many complications to contemplate marriage to her. I am not too keen on Sarah or Andrew but I do think they were well suited.

ysbel 02-02-2008 09:56 AM

Was Diana presented as a country girl at first? I remember she was nicknamed one of the Sloane Rangers which was a pretty fashionable moniker named for London's tony Sloane Sqaure. She also had an apartment in a fashionable London neighborhood.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises