As many as 2 billion people — about a third of the world — were expected to watch as Prince William took Kate Middleton’s hand in marriage. For all the extravagance and fanfare of a future monarch’s wedding, we recognize in it some of our deepest human aspirations. We share in the nobility of the institution of marriage.
That same chord was struck 30 years ago, when much of the world tuned in to see the Prince of Wales wed Lady Diana Spencer on July 29, 1981. As ABC’s Ted Koppel commented that evening: “Today’s marriage between Charles and Diana was … a hugely magnified version of what most of us hope for, the idealized beginning of what is meant to ripen into the perfect partnership of a man and a woman.”
Koppel’s ABC colleague Bob Green added: “The royal aspect almost was secondary. … [T]here was something universal about the ceremony of life that was taking place. The message was the same one that comes through at a wedding in a church recreation room in New Hampshire or a justice of the peace’s office in Ohio.”
When Charles and Diana said “I will,” the roar of the crowd outside St. Paul’s Cathedral “was almost as if the world was cheering for itself,” Green reported.
And indeed we do cheer for ourselves when we rejoice in wedding vows.
Marriage is a promise. Not just between one man and one woman, but to the community at large, to generations past and to those yet to be born. Wedding vows set apart this lifelong, life-giving relationship from all others.
That’s why we cheered in 1981, even though, to quote ABC’s Green, “marriage and the family have fallen on hard times.”
How much more so in the 30 years since: The bitter, postmodern ending to Princess Diana’s own fairy tale is an apt metaphor for the troubled state of marriage today.
Still, the institution endures, even when a particular marriage falls apart. Our failure to attain it doesn’t change the ideal.
With good reason, the world once again roared with joy at the universal promise embodied in William and Kate’s vows.
— Jennifer A. Marshall is director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org) and author of Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the Twenty-First Century.
Good Lord, this again???
No, this is not the practice of an ideal. You see, statistically speaking, couples that shack up are more likely to divorce than those that don't. These two have been shacked up, thus they cannot be held up as an example to my children.
The entire "royal" family (I refuse to capitalize due to the whole 1776 thing) is a freak show that lives on the public dime. The British only staged this wedding to get more tourism dollars flowing into the economy. Let's not pretend this wedding was any more important or special than any other wedding held this weekend. In fact, it is lesser than many other weddings - where the couples involved held onto their morals until the wedding night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a little surprised at how much crabbiness this wedding has brought out (Bill O'Reilly, Sheppard Smith, and, now, LesleyPezley). Have I missed an opportunity to make some snarky and cynical comments? Must be slipping.
I was thinking how sick and frustrated the French must have been in watching this grand spectacle. Historic preservation and celebration of ~le patrimoine~, aside from being good for business, is practically a religion in France. And, of course, they believe that they invented elegance. Now, having no royals to marry, they have been reduced to renting out the Palace of Versailles for celebrations of billionaire foreigners. The French could do a fabulous job with royal pageantry, but, alas, they are out of the game due to an ugly fit of populism that swept their country a couple of centuries ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat point of this post is what? Is it that marriage is a great institution?
Look, some people really like weddings, and the royal weddings are the Superbowl of such events. So, while I could not care less, I understand the interest. But let's not go nuts here with all the "... we recognize in it some of our deepest human aspirations".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it wrong of me to be disappointed in not seeing Prince Phillip and the Queen do the chicken dance at the reception? Can there really be said to have been a wedding if there was no chicken dance?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for your post. Some of the previous commenters have missed your point, but that is no surprise. People make bad decisions, people pick wrong spouses, people make bad decisions after finding the right spouse. The whole thing is messy and anything but ideal, even when couples stay together. And yet...and yet, after almost 25 years of love and fidelity with my dear wife, my wedding band is my most treasured possession. She knows me completely and loves me anyway, and that commands gentleness, loyalty, good humor, a willingness to work hard and a willingness both to please and be pleased in turn. And if I fail in any of this today, as I may, she will not have taken lasting offence, and will be here tomorrow to receive my better self. If this is not something to celebrate, what is?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEd in Cary:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBe careful what you wish for. I think the French, along with much of much Western Civ., could very easily return to a (limited) monarchy very soon. The Borbourns are still around...
It's a good show, looks like something from Disneyland or Hollywood. The current American monarchy lives in the DC suburbs, controlling the government levers regardless of party.