Charles and Diana

[Curryong]

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

[csw]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

Thank you! This is a fantastic read

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

rather off topic, but it seems like they got about 50% of things right and 50% wrong. little hints about Camilla... and rather unkind about Anne....

[Curryong]

I don't think that this was meant to be anything but a piece filled with light gossip, impressions, incidents, events, (like the garden party) that had been picked up by this person at the time of that week in 1981. That's why I posted it. It's a moment in time curiosity piece now.

I didn't post this in the wedding thread because it specifically wasn't really about the wedding ceremony or its preparations. It concerns itself IMO with a man and very young woman who were only a week away from a new life together, but also about how some Londoners and visitors reacted to it all, and to Diana. It was a very exciting week for locals who were swept up in the celebrations, balls, dinners that were being held. I remember the sense of excitement and happiness was almost palpable, and I think these pages reflect that.

[MARG]

You have to watch out for "light gossip". All too often it has barbs and stirs animosity that should have long been dead and buried. It is most definitely not harmless, it just keeps the pot simmering and in this case it's about stuff that happened over 35 years ago.

"Brixton aside" ? Hardly harmless. Pretty poison is more like it.

[Curryong]

One allusion to something happening in Brixton in a series of articles of over five pages! Really!

I posted this as a curiosity piece, about one week in London in a lead up to a royal wedding not as a document about race relations in Britain nearly forty years ago. It's a light piece, meant to be enjoyed, a moment in time in 1981. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I don't think that this was meant to be anything but a piece filled with light gossip, impressions, incidents, events, (like the garden party) that had been picked up by this person at the time of that week in 1981. That's why I posted it. It's a moment in time curiosity piece now.

I didn't post this in the wedding thread because it specifically wasn't really about the wedding ceremony or its preparations. It concerns itself IMO with a man and very young woman who were only a week away from a new life together, but also about how some Londoners and visitors reacted to it all, and to Diana. It was a very exciting week for locals who were swept up in the celebrations, balls, dinners that were being held. I remember the sense of excitement and happiness was almost palpable, and I think these pages reflect that.

I found it rather bitty, but as I said, it got some things right and others not. But I did notice that the reporter wasn't very nice about Anne.
I remember reading all the stuff about Diana, back then.. and there was a ltot of excitement.. but some thought then that it was all a bit too much and there were other things going on in the world besides a royal wedding...

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I just came across this little oddity on the Internet. Nearly 38 years ago the UK was gearing up for the wedding of Charles and Diana. One of the journalists in London for the wedding week was this reporter from The New York Magazine. She filed five (short) reports on Charles, Diana, other royals and the social events of that week, and there are some fascinating little details. It just seems a world away now. The articles go from one upwards.

How England Prepared for the Wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles -- New York Magazine

What a gem! I remember that week so well & she captures it in hilarious, knife-sharp detail.

My favourite sentence is this one:
"Charles, for his part, seems charmed with his bride-to-be. Apparently, he fell in love with her during those weeks he was in Australia alone."

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

What a gem! I remember that week so well & she captures it in hilarious, knife-sharp detail.

My favourite sentence is this one:
"Charles, for his part, seems charmed with his bride-to-be. Apparently, he fell in love with her during those weeks he was in Australia alone."

seems a bit "diggy"...

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Denville

seems a bit "diggy"...

Perhaps better having a sarky dig than saying what everyone else was saying openly - namely that it was as clear as day that Charles wasn't even a tiny bit in love with Diana.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

Perhaps better having a sarky dig than saying what everyone else was saying openly - namely that it was as clear as day that Charles wasn't even a tiny bit in love with Diana.

I don't remember anyone saying that.

[Osipi]

I finally got a chance to sit and actually read the article. Maybe its just me but I found the entire thing to be a satirical piece and not to be taken seriously as in "fact" reporting.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Denville

I don't remember anyone saying that.

That's fair enough - I wouldn't wish to deny your memories. For myself, I do remember everyone I knew saying it so the article resonates very much with me.

Originally Posted by Osipi

I finally got a chance to sit and actually read the article. Maybe its just me but I found the entire thing to be a satirical piece and not to be taken seriously as in "fact" reporting.

It's certainly written with humour but there's much more truth than satire in there IMO (except for some of the US people she mentions - I never met or knew anything about them).

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I finally got a chance to sit and actually read the article. Maybe its just me but I found the entire thing to be a satirical piece and not to be taken seriously as in "fact" reporting.

why satire?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

That's fair enough - I wouldn't wish to deny your memories. For myself, I do remember everyone I knew saying it so the article resonates very much with me.



It's certainly written with humour but there's much more truth than satire in there IMO (except for some of the US people she mentions - I never met or knew anything about them).

I think that mostly people were willing to believe that it was a genuine love match.. perhaps not wild passion but not that there were so many issues as there actauly were

[Ista]

I read the article as having been written with a fair degree of skepticism directed at the whole fairy tale perspective of the wedding. While I agree that the overarching popular narrative was that it was a love match, I also recall distinctly that there were recurring comments about the age difference, the difference in interests and personality, Charles's attachment to Camilla, the famous "Whatever 'love' means" comment from Charles, and so on. With the benefit of hindsight, many of the points and issues brought up in the New Yorker article make it obvious that the problems that later rocked the marriage were there from the very beginning and obvious to the discerning eye.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Denville

why satire?

Because in so many places in the article, it took something that really happened and put a satirical slant to it. The garden party for example and the Maynards from Maidenhead and the riposte back and from between them and Charles. The bridal registry items and the plates that resembled Anne's hat at said garden party. Stating Charles "fell in love" with Diana while off to Australia alone and seeing her plastered over all the media.

It looked to me like the author of the piece took what was and elaborated on it as a parody of British society. I found the article to be quite amusing.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Because in so many places in the article, it took something that really happened and put a satirical slant to it. The garden party for example and the Maynards from Maidenhead and the riposte back and from between them and Charles. The bridal registry items and the plates that resembled Anne's hat at said garden party. Stating Charles "fell in love" with Diana while off to Australia alone and seeing her plastered over all the media.

It looked to me like the author of the piece took what was and elaborated on it as a parody of British society. I found the article to be quite amusing.

so what was the point of it exactly? I think it took digs at people which were unkind...

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Denville

so what was the point of it exactly? I think it took digs at people which were unkind...

For me, it was a lighthearted parody of the (at the time) recently held "wedding of the century and all the hoopla surrounding it. The "digs" were done tongue in cheek as I saw it. Kind of like an artist doing a caricature of their subject.
From Charles having an inane nonsensical conversation about Maynards from Maidenhead using maiden names back and forth to Anne's hat and the Queen perhaps being at an after party.

So, I found the article to be highly amusing to say the least. Remember this was written for the New Yorker and the author really wouldn't have been privy to the conversations, the guest lists or the bridal registry whatsoever. Pure invention.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Osipi

For me, it was a lighthearted parody of the (at the time) recently held "wedding of the century and all the hoopla surrounding it. The "digs" were done tongue in cheek as I saw it. Kind of like an artist doing a caricature of their subject.
From Charles having an inane nonsensical conversation about Maynards from Maidenhead using maiden names back and forth to Anne's hat and the Queen perhaps being at an after party.

So, I found the article to be highly amusing to say the least. Remember this was written for the New Yorker and the author really wouldn't have been privy to the conversations, the guest lists or the bridal registry whatsoever. Pure invention.

so if the author didn't hear any conversations, what is the point really? If she was at the Garden party, did she really hear the conversations Diana and C had with people? if not, was it really right to make up stuff?
I thought It was rather sharp and not very kind, to many people. how does she know that "Charles fell in love with Diana when she wasn't there?"

Britisih journalists DID notice the various "differences" between C and his 19 year old bride.. that she was young and not very educated. He was 32 and very serious minded and liked to study and learn.. that he had been involved with several women, including Camilla and that Di famously had had no real boyfriends...and that he wasn't all lovey dovey with her. But they didn't necessarily think that that meant he did not love her in a quiet way, and that the marriage would not work out. THey realised that if he had to marry a girl with no past, she was likely to be young.. and that Charles beign royal and British, was not likely to go all kissy kissy in public with his fiancée,but he might care for her just the same.