|
Triumph of hope and experience
Most people, it seems, are happy about the forthcoming wedding of
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. Wishing any couple
happiness is the least we can do, whether we are royalists or
republicans. Of course, there is extra significance attached to
their decision, and this has been covered amply by other columnists.
What few have discussed is the institution of remarriage. ‘A triumph
of hope over experience,’ is what Dr Johnson called it, but his
words aren’t as cynical as they might sound. He was referring to
those who remarry in haste, and goes on to point out that it is a
compliment to a first happy marriage for a man (and presumably a
woman) to marry again.
In the eighteenth century, remarriage usually followed the death of
a spouse – often when the wife died in childbirth. Divorce was rare,
costly and could leave a wife in abject poverty. So Johnson could
refer to a happy first marriage as a common occurrence. We can never
know the hidden misery of some of these marriages, though we get a
good idea from the literature of the times.
Today, remarriage is common after divorce, but so is cohabiting.
Why do people remarry when it is just as easy to live together?
Commitment, pressure from relatives, religious belief, pensions,
inheritance tax are all reasons for remarrying. I know a couple who
have lived together for over thirty years and are now getting
married because he has reached sixty-five. It’s her first marriage
and she is as delighted and excited as any bride, showing off her
diamond engagement ring. Her mother, she says, is relieved and
delighted too.
Most older couples are more cautious and more knowing second time
around. No one can accuse Charles and Camilla of remarrying in
haste, and they are typical of older and more experienced people.
Presumably, they value companionship, tolerance, humour, loyalty and
the importance of having a row and then getting over it. These, when
we come down to it, are the true expressions of enduring love, not
romantic passion and sexual desire. Charles and Camilla are not glamourous young things and have been – curiously – vilified for
this, with negative references to their looks and age. The Guardian,
of all newspapers, carried a cartoon of the couple on zimmer frames,
a sad reflection of our ageist society.
Camilla bears little resemblance to Princess Diana, and perhaps the
public resent this. But is it wise for remarrieds to seek a replica, or
even a younger version of their previous partners? Conventional
wisdom has it that a replica is a Bad Thing. But a man or woman,
second time around, may be aware that they had been too immature to
appreciate the qualities of their first partner, and are willing to
try again, with perhaps a little more insight into why they find a
certain kind of personality attractive.
Mostly, second couples do the opposite, and go for someone quite
different, perhaps realising that their first choice was a big
mistake. Whatever the choice, remarriage is complicated. Couples
have to take on a new extended family, often including stepchildren.
They may have to co-exist with ex-partners (and their new partners),
grandparents, other relatives.
Happy families? Why not? It’s all a matter of adapting. Even to the
Queen as your mother-in-law.
Have you considered remarriage? Do you prefer to live together?
Email me with your views: helen@laterlife.com
|
Talkback is a
regular feature in laterlife.com run by
journalist and author Helen Franks. 
