SUZANNE writes:

Kate Middleton is just another nail in the downfall of the British monarchy and the death of Britain. She is not a virgin (for which she is praised), will not obey her husband, is not refined and ladylike as she seems plus she has cohabitated with Prince Williams seven to eight years before this marriage. Many journalists and tabloids are ecstatic at how “modern” they are and how the Royal house embraces progress and liberation. Modernity is often just another code word for immorality and decadence it seems. The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is a foolish man and should be excommunicated from the Christian church. Compared to society as a whole it seems only religious communities have any morality left despite the corruption within. And yes, unfortunately transcendence is a huge factor on whether a person is conservative or liberal.

                                 — Comments —

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

Here in the New World, we are at odds with monarchy, although less so in Canada than perhaps in America. I always talk about the importance of the (now defunct) Ethiopian monarchy – although there are rumblings of exiled royalty returning to resume some kind of presence – saying how much it helped ground the country and the people. The important factor along with that of course is Christianity, through which (through God) the monarchs ruled.

I was strangely (positively) affected by the celebrations in Britain. [Kidist’s posts at her own blog can be read here and here.] Then I started to watch the news and commentary by liberal Canadians (women mostly) who were basking in the holiday in materialistic terms, and not without some vanity (as in Queen for a day), and I was turned off by their narcissistic and materialistic associations to the day.

I was blindsided by this, and wrote a negative review of the wedding. Then suddenly, I did a 180 degree turn, and resumed my old belief of the importance of monarchy. This was when I saw how young (28 and 29 is still young) Will and Kate are, and how many forces are out there that will play negative roles in their development. I think it is far worse in our modern (liberal) era than ever before. Even William’s fumble of the ring is in a way symbolic of their general nervousness at the ominous role they have to muddle through. Imagine, though, William refusing to wear a ring, but that Kate does. A ring identifies a person as married to someone as belonging to someone. How old-fashioned can he get – his wife belongs to him to protect, and to keep, in the sense of her welfare.

No one was able to guide Kate through the vows, and through those long years when they couldn’t decide what to do. I get the feeling that William will somehow naturally tell her how he feels she should behave (he broke with her for a while, and could it be because of her unfeminine, unqueenly, behavior?). And the pomp and ceremony of the wedding itself must mean something to them, and give them something to work from (and through) over the years. But, in the end, I wonder who will help them? They will need all the help they can get.

Laura writes:

Diana is still a major factor. If she had been a stable person who understood her duties, William might have had a mother to guide him. But it is hard to imagine Diana in the matronly role even if she had not left. It is likely she would have continued to pursue her own stardom.

Nora writes:

While I agree with Suzanne that cohabitation before marriage is wrong, and that many journalists put their moral illiteracy on display through their comments, I think it unseemly to heap criticism on Kate Middleton for not being a virgin on her wedding day or on the prince for marrying her. 

Firstly, harping on a bride’s sexual experience or lack thereof strikes me as crass. It is criticism that is not constructive in any way because it comes at a point where the person, if she was in the wrong, is already doing something to rectify the situation. She’s getting married. Secondly, the news coverage I’ve seen states that they have been romantically involved with each other for 8-9 years, spent some time living together, but I didn’t hear anyone mention either of them ever living with other people. It’s very likely that the man to whom she ceded her virginity was the man she married. Which is as it should be, although the sequence of events leaves something to be desired. 

As for those who think Prince William should not have married her, I wonder which of the following they would rather have for a future king: A man who strings a woman along for 8-9 years, lives with her, and then rejects her in the end because she is “unsuitable,” “not a virgin,” etc. or a man who is enough of a gentleman to marry the woman who invested so many years of her life in a relationship with him and who even consented (albeit foolishly) to live with him–probably hoping, like so many women, that it would eventually lead to marriage? I’d prefer the latter any day.

Laura writes:

I agree it is unseemly to criticize a bride on her wedding day. Suzanne made her comments the day after the wedding, and I think that’s fine. It may be wrong to harp on a bride’s sexual experience, but it is not wrong to talk about it if the woman is possibly the future queen of England and is the object of worldwide attention. Then it becomes necessary to talk about the significance of the details. There are many things someone in that position will be either criticized for, or praised for, that wouldn’t apply to normal people.

The point was that they should not have lived together, not that he should have dumped her after they had lived together.

Please follow and like us: