The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana

I have an important confession about this movie...I don't care one bit about the British royal family or any other royal family. Part of this might be because I am an American...but I also don't care a bit about the Kardashians or Kennedys or any other 'special family'.

So you would be very fair in wondering "Why would this jerk bother to review a film about the royal family if he doesn't care about them?". Well, it's because this made for TV movie is chock full of classic film stars.... Olivia de Havilland, Stewart Granger, Ray Milland and Dana Wynter. And, that is THE reason I watched this on YouTube...I just wanted to see as many of these actors' films as I can, as I've seen nearly all of several of these stars' movies.

When the story begins, you can tell that it's meant to be a fairytale and special sort of thing. You just have to hear the over-the-top music to understand what I am saying. This sort of magical fairy tale thing is great if you love schmaltzy romance movies...but horrible if you want any real insight into these real life people. In the story, they simply are highly fictionalized and idealized. We now have the advantage of hindsight to know that this love story was, in effect, a farce. This was no great love affair and the press and royal family created this image.

So, apart from the godawful music, is this a well made film? And, more importantly, is it worth seeing? Well, the acting IS good...and with such illustrious stars as supporting actors, it cannot help but be. And, so, technically it's not a bad looking film. Plus, they managed to make Catherine Oxenberg look a LOT like Diana Spencer. The same cannot be said about Christopher Baines who is just looks little like the large-eared Charles (he actually looks a bit more like Charles' brother, the recently disgraced Prince Andrew).

The problem with the film is the script...and most of this is because now we know that the marriage was a highly dysfuctional and loveless one. As a result, try as the writers could to make it all seem marvelous and inspiring, we now know it was a farce...which essentially ruins the movie today. Back in 1982, I and others would have rated this film much higher...but time has not been good to the memory of Chuck and Di.

Overall, a film which did NOT age well and isn't worth your time unless you could use a good laugh or enjoy watching a tragedy unfold. Mostly, it's only for the morbidly curious.

You have to have some background here - Night time soaps like "Dynasty", "Dallas", "Falcon Crest", and "Knot's Landing" were all the rage in the early 80s. All of them featured tons of backstabbing among the wealthy and usually one couple true blue to each other throughout the lying, cheating, and stealing of their friends and family. So the storybook romance, at least as it was presented in the early 80s, between the 19 year old beauty and the 33 year old somewhat horse faced heir to the British throne was eaten up by the American public.

I rather wish it had really been the way it is portrayed here, although the opening scene of a young prince Charles rather ogling Diana as a child is creepy by today's standards. Unfortunately, as everybody knows now, Diana Spencer was merely the virginal Protestant who fit the bill as future mother to the heirs of the British throne rather than Charles' true love. THAT role had been the one of his current wife, Camilla, since the 1970s. But Queen Elizabeth rejected Camilla as a future wife for Charles because Camilla was not a virgin. The ensuing car wreck of scandals that appeared after her son married Diana, caused by the mismatch in interests and lack of love, and lack of truth in advertising to Diana as to what she was getting into apparently taught the royals a lesson for the 21st century - Let the young people fall in love.

Back to the film. Diabetics really shouldn't watch, but the performances are actually very good and quite a time capsule of the innocent early 80s, even though "innocent" is a word that those of us who lived through the early 80s would never use to describe that time.

Also note appearances by classic film era greats Ray Milland and Olivia DeHavilland. Their only other appearance in a film together was in 1946's hard to find "The Well Groomed Bride".

Not bad, for a made-for-TV movie, and it's a wonder that given the events surrounding Princess Diana that have taken place since that famous Royal Wedding, there hasn't been more exposure of this film.

I saw it when it first aired and was never really that interested in British royalty to care about seeing it except for the notable cast. Any film that gives OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND a chance to be seen again (her career had become very sporadic by this time), was worth checking out. I was also interested in seeing how RAY MILLAND, STEWART GRANGER and DANA WYNTER appeared--other seldom seen stars from Hollywood's Golden Age.

Well, the best thing about this one is the cast. It was nice seeing all these old favorites together and CATHERINE OXENBERG gave a reasonably good performance as Diana. But I was disappointed in Olivia's Queen Elizabeth, given little to do, and only fleetingly amusing in a scene where she coaches Oxenberg on royal deportment--table manners and walking up and down stairs, etc. Other than that, she had very little to do.

Nor were RAY MILLAND, DANA WYNTER or STEWART GRANGER on display long enough to evaluate them as performers. Strange that the producers went to the trouble to get these stars and then gave them little to do except be seen as little more than background filler.

Unless you're extremely interested in British royalty, this one was pretty much a yawner not worth bothering about.

It mainly gets the stars for it's cast from the golden era of Hollywood and because it's a fun time capsule. The movie deals with the "romance" before Charles and Diana get married. Note the date - this was before the whole controversy over Camilla so this was back in the days people thought Charles and Diana were a romantic love story. For people who were around and remember the whole media frenzy surrounding the Charles/Diana wedding it's a fun time capsule and the acting was decent in it. Catherine Oxenberg did one of the best jobs playing Diana that I have seen. Diana gave her approval for this film to be made so that could be why. They intersperse footage of the actual wedding with the actors from the movie.