They first met when he was 28 and she was 16 when he was dating her sister. They didn't start dating until three years later, and they married four weeks after her 20th birthday when he was 32. He had felt the pressure from his father to get married and produce a son, and he gave in, just like he did ten years earlier when his father had forbid him to marry his true love because she was a year older than he was. But now he was married and eleven months after the marriage, that son had been produced.
He loved the country, but she loved the city. Soon they realized they had nothing in common, they weren't friends, and no surprise, this sad marriage ended in divorce, which is actually not surprising for a woman who marries at 20, but it took 15 years.
Then at the age of 55, he finally marries his best friend, the woman he's known for decades, the woman he shares interests with, the woman his father forbid him from marrying 30 years earlier. Indeed father is "very happy," but yet he still refuses to attend the nuptuals.
Isn't this second marriage what romance is about? Finally getting it right, finally ending up with who it seemed so obvious, overcoming the world set against you. Isn't there a Nicolas Sparks bestseller with this plot?
Maybe if that 19 year old girl was the daughter of mountain farmer or coal miner, then we'd get this reaction. But of course Diana Spencer was the daughter of a viscount who would later become the 7th Earl of Spencer. And she was still marrying up--to the heir to the British throne, no less. It was a fairytale wedding watched by three-quarters of a billion people on TV, many of them dreaming that one day they too could marry a prince 12 years older than themselves with whom they have nothing in common so they can provide her in-laws with a grandson. It is romantic. Now I understand.
Could it be that Prince Charles had both the wedding of the last century and as well as a (if not the) wedding of this century? The first was decidely old fashion, the second more modern. Which one is more highly thought of? Congratulations Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall.
He loved the country, but she loved the city. Soon they realized they had nothing in common, they weren't friends, and no surprise, this sad marriage ended in divorce, which is actually not surprising for a woman who marries at 20, but it took 15 years.
Then at the age of 55, he finally marries his best friend, the woman he's known for decades, the woman he shares interests with, the woman his father forbid him from marrying 30 years earlier. Indeed father is "very happy," but yet he still refuses to attend the nuptuals.
Isn't this second marriage what romance is about? Finally getting it right, finally ending up with who it seemed so obvious, overcoming the world set against you. Isn't there a Nicolas Sparks bestseller with this plot?
Maybe if that 19 year old girl was the daughter of mountain farmer or coal miner, then we'd get this reaction. But of course Diana Spencer was the daughter of a viscount who would later become the 7th Earl of Spencer. And she was still marrying up--to the heir to the British throne, no less. It was a fairytale wedding watched by three-quarters of a billion people on TV, many of them dreaming that one day they too could marry a prince 12 years older than themselves with whom they have nothing in common so they can provide her in-laws with a grandson. It is romantic. Now I understand.
Could it be that Prince Charles had both the wedding of the last century and as well as a (if not the) wedding of this century? The first was decidely old fashion, the second more modern. Which one is more highly thought of? Congratulations Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home