And The Aristocats.
‘Ma, sooner or later, there comes a point in a man’s life when he’s gotta face some facts. And one fact I gotta face is that, whatever it is that women like, I ain’t got it.’
The relationship between Malcolm Reynolds and Inara Sara in Firefly qualifies, and all the chicks I know watched the series, so there’s that.
How to Marry a millionaire.
Gee, it seems to me that the opposite is the type specimen. That is, the typical romance is the good but poor guy who is up against a rich man vying for the heroine’s affections. Of course the good-hearted poor guy wins over the rich pig. Sheesh!
Ugh, I hate Edmund Bertram, that stuffy, gossiping, moralistic twit. Perfect match for Fanny “Mary Sue” Price. In any of Austen’s better novels, Edmund would have been considered the Mr. Collins (Pride and Prejudice)/ Mr. Elton (Emma) character – the vicar who’s high-minded and hypocritical, and eventually exposed and despised for being so. Edmund loves whispering to Fanny about the imperfections in everyone around him, and is quick to ignore her once the rich, beautiful Mary catches his eye. Austen has to turn Mary into a little monster by having her say things no normal woman would say (“I hope your older brother dies so you can be the heir”) in order for Edmund to realize, duh, Mary kinda sucks.
Henry has a classic redemption arc, but Austen apparently didn’t believe in redemption and had to make him revert, to the vast detriment of the book. At least the two insufferable protagonists truly belong together.
Sorry for the digression; Mansfield Park is the only Austen I cannot abide. What the heck, after writing all of her other classics, even Jane Austen’s entitled to a dud.
Back on topic: IMHO, as you mentioned, this is a trope that Austen’s done before (and much better). The best hero along those lines in Austen is Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility (seen in the resulting fantastic “chick flick” film written by/starring Emma Thompson). I also think Edward is also in a more legitimately poor state than (annoyingly similarly named) Edmund Bertram, since Edmund is a favorite of his wealthy father and despite being only a second son, is almost certain to inherit a decent sum upon his father’s death. Edward Ferrars, OTOH, is cut off completely from his family’s money when he does the Right Thing and angers his mother, and the only way he got his humble country living was thanks to Colonel Brandon’s largesse.
Also, if you compare the heroines in both cases–Elinor in S&S and Fanny in MP–both Elinor and Fanny are marrying higher up than their own station (Fanny more so than Elinor). I see Edmund in particular as the “Prince Charming” type, considering his resources are vastly superior to Fanny’s.
How they open the school: Jo falls into good fortune (really, the reward of her good works toward her aunt) when she inherits Aunt March’s massive house, Plumfield, which enables Jo and Friedrich to open their school. I imagine Jo’s dad helped them out as well, not that the Marches were wealthy, but they were more comfortable than the sisters’ whining would indicate. 
(Somewhat similar to the Dashwoods in Sense and Sensibility, it’s really just that their circumstances were vastly reduced–more so in S&S than LW; neither family is ever at risk of true poverty, though the Dashwoods do come closer before the generosity of Mrs. Dashwood’s cousin Sir John steps in to save the day.)
And I love Amy! She’s a wonderful example of a feisty young woman who still has the morals of her family deeply entrenched in her, and Laurie’s turning to her after Jo’s wise refusal (although it broke most Jo/Laurie fans’ hearts, I daresay!) gave him the precise redemption arc from wastrel to sober but fun-loving young man that Austen should’ve given Henry Crawford.
Another Flambards fan, yay! It’s actually not quite like that. The miniseries encompasses three books of the K.M. Peyton series, and in fact the first book depicts Christina as being intended for her older cousin Mark, the heir of the house–mainly because Christina’s to inherit a fuckton of money and her Uncle Russell needs the money to maintain the Flambards estate (which, like many estates of that era and later, was not self-sustaining in the least). She does have a kinship with horse trainer/tenant Dick, and he clearly loves her, but Christina’s true love is Mark’s younger brother William (who’s despised by his father for hating huntin’, ridin’ and generally being someone who gives a crap about the injustices of the world and looks forward to the future in aeroplanes). Christina ends up running off with William and eloping, happily married… until WWI arrives.
It’s only in the latter part of the miniseries (depicting the third of the initial triloogy) where Christina, now widowed (sob!) chooses between wealthy Mark and poorer and still-in-love Dick, and the latter prevails. Kinda.
Um… if you haven’t read the fourth book, Flambards Divided, which was written after the miniseries, you may want to skip this spoiler.
[spoiler]Author K.M. Peyton so adored the chemistry between the actors who played Christina and Mark that she added a final book that pretty much retcons the characters. Whereas Christina was quite clearly well-matched in new husband Dick Wright as far as the original trilogy’s ending, suddenly Christina is depicted as only marginally in love with her husband, and suddenly Mark–whom Christina has only very clearly grown to like despite himself by the trilogy’s end, is now depicted as being one of Christina’s “early loves.” B.S., right? Christina never loved Mark in the slightest, except as a cousin/brother-in-law.
Anyhoo, Christina’s marriage w/Dick falters because of their different stations/interests–realistic but disappointing–while Mark’s lively rakish behavior is vastly toned down and his own marriage to previously well-suited Dorothy is damaged because he prefers the country and she’s a city girl. Or something like that. In the end, the author shat on her previous characterization and shoved Mark and Christina together once they were legally able. So endgame is Christina/Mark, believe it or not, and thus the poor guy gets screwed-over for the rich one. More realistic, I suppose, but disappointing for Peyton to be so affected by the filming of her own novel.[/spoiler]
I haven’t seen it, but isn’t it the opposite of what we’re looking for here? The women are poor and looking to marry millionaires.
Fisher King.
A Guy Named Joe (remade as Always).
Roughly half of them.
Exactly, to the extent that Thurber wrote a wonderful fable lampshading the trope.
She looked rich, but wasn’t.
Overboard.
Welllll…
They mostly end up with non-millionaires, with one exception that comes as a surprise.
Two that come to mind are Four Weddings and a Funeral, where Ali McGraw ditched the Scottish Laird who was an MP for Hugh Grant (occupation unspecified, but judging by his car and flat, definitely not rich) and Run Fat Boy Run, where the female lead chooses poor boy Simon Peggy over rich guy Hank Azaria.
Notting Hill is another good example.
ETA: I don’t know what the fact that all three of my picks are English films means. Probably something deep and probing about the English class system, masked by a light rom-com façade.
Or something.
nm
Northern Piper writes:
> . . . Ali McGraw . . .
That’s an interesting error. You meant Andie MacDowell, not Ali McGraw.
quite right.
Interesting. Contrast erotic romances, which are ALL about average women having sex with billionaires. Preferably werewolf billionaires. Preferably preferably werewolf biker billionaires.
No, I am not making this up.
right but two of them end up with poor guys and the third with a guy she thinks is poor but turns out not to be.
How Stella Got Her Groove Back. Possibly Eat Love Pray.