Elizabeth, I appreciated your post about why you’re watching the royal wedding with your daughter, but to me there’s something about this royal wedding that is quite different from the one you and I watched as children — something that makes it a bit less of a spectacle.
I was seven years old in 1981 when Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles. Like all girls my age — and quite a few women! — I sat in my home and dreamed of what it must be like to become a princess. I didn’t know that Diana’s uncle actually told the press his niece was a “bona fide virgin” (nor did I know what a “virgin” was, other than a mysterious word in some Christmas carols). Historically, royal families marry virgins to ensure the integrity of their royal bloodlines, to guarantee that any children produced from the marriage are legitimate heirs to the throne. Certainly Diana emanated purity, from her frilly, modest wedding gown to her shy demeanor.
The relationship between Prince William and Kate seems — dare I write it — just like many other modern relationships. They met while attending the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. After their initial first meeting, William went to see Kate modeling lingerie at a charity event. (Okay, so maybe that part wasn’t “normal.”) They dated for eight years, they moved in together, they broke up, they made up. Prince Charles joked with the BBC that he was glad the wedding was finally happening, because, well, “They’ve been practicing for long enough.”
Of course, virginity wasn’t enough to guarantee a successful marriage in the case of Diana and Charles. Perhaps the “fairy tale” wedding thrust such unrealistic expectations on them as a royal couple that their marriage couldn’t withstand the collective weight. It might even be the case — I hope so — that William and Kate are a more stable couple because they dated longer before their marriage. But as I watch them prepare for their lavish ceremony, it just seems oppressively “normal.” Like a doctor marrying a lawyer, not a prince marrying a princess.
Instead of watching the wedding with our kids to provide mental images of big, bold, beautiful weddings, we should focus instead on big, bold, beautiful marriages. You know, the ones that are anything but normal.
— Nancy French is author of Red State of Mind and co-author of the upcoming Home & Away.
I remember reading, long before Diana, that Charles wanted to marry Camilla (maybe even before she was married) and was told he could not because she was not a virgin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, I remember that at the time that Diana actually had to undergo a physical. It wasn't enough for her uncle to assert her viginity (and he would know, how?)
With the advent of DNA testing, not to mention a general change in cultural norms, virginity per se loses some importance. Legitimacy could still be verified via DNA testing (though of course no one has perfomed this on say, Harry, but the principal stands).
A more imporatnt factor besides the relaxing of purity standards is the relaxing of aristocratic birth standards. Charles had a tiny pool of potential mates to choose from. William has the entire non-Catholic world, especially the British part of it. It's no wonder if he found a woman with whom he has more in common than his father was able to find.
It's true that marriages where the couples didn't previously cohabit break up all the time - but so do marriages where they did, and such marriages fail at a higher rate. Chastity is no guarantor of success, but neither is shacking up, so let's not replace one failed standard with a worse one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL, the gateway to get in is getting tighter.
Yes, It's just as Jerry Steinfeld says. They pretend that they are special.
I still wish them the best of luck. Although Kate had to give up Roman Catholicism, they didn't require it of her parents too, did they?
Just envisage it. A King of England with a Catholic Grand Dad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm eagerly awaiting comment from all the "pro-family" commenters on this site (and Miss K. Lopez) to chime in with complaints, criticisms, etc. about the endorsement here for living together before marriage. Come on, guys - just pretend William's gay and chose a husband!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAwesome post, Nancy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCarolina - You can bet it would have been "big news" if Kate Middleton had been a Roman Catholic and hanging around the heir to the throne these past few years.
So far as I know, she and her parents have always been members of the Church of England, and she hasn't had to change her religion in order to marry Prince William.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a big fan of both William and Kate.
Not for them being particularly noteworthy, but they're just about the only way to obtain press about two apparently good, kind people in the world. That's a refreshing change of pace sometimes from the typical news cycle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse