SPENCER WARREN writes:

Please let me note I disagree 100 percent with negative opinions expressed here about Kate Middleton herself and her gown. I thought she was just beautiful. Her naturalness and dignity as she waved to crowds in a situation she had never before encountered were very appealing – both in the landau and on the balcony. Also her spontaneity. 

The couple’s unprecedented modesty in forsaking a lavish ring in favor of a simple gold wedding band for the bride, and William’s decline of suggestions that he ask Kate to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, speak well of the couple. As does their request that any wedding gifts be made not to them but to one of their charities. And note that Kate played in a major part in the choice of traditional music that we heard. 

Philippa is the actual name of her sister. No comment at this time on her gown!! In contrast, note the dignity and power with which the younger brother, James, read the passage from Romans. A practiced clergyman could not have done this better. 

According to my fairly extensive reading, the reason the couple took so long before marrying is that William is determined that Kate not be victimized and destroyed by the press, courtiers and whoever, as his mother was. He wanted Kate to see very clearly what she was getting into, to see she could weather it, and to be certain their union would never face divorce, which would be catastrophic for the future of the monarchy. 

Under the circumstances, and given current mores, I don’t think their long living arrangement should be held against them. 

On the positive side for Diana, she did not want her children to grow up stuffed shirts like their father and the rest of the hidebound royal court. She seems, to the degree we can understand from the outside, to have done quite well with William. This is reflected, among other things, in his having attended a regular university, where he met the uncommon “commoner” Kate. In my opinion, she promises to inject great appeal into the institution. Further, I have read that he wishes to continue his RAF career at length, rather than drop it to assume the usual chit-chat duties of his position. William may institute worthy reforms in the monarchy over time. 

Finally, I think you and a couple of the other commenters take too much of a black-and-white view of the whole thing (although Philippa’s gown is open to criticism). Much as we don’t like most of the changes of the past 50 years, they are not going to be rolled back. As you have written, good was done by the traditional nature of the ceremony itself (including the magnificent choral music by Sir Charles H. Parry – father of the English musical renaissance in the late 19th century, which blossomed with Elgar in the first decade of the 20th century; Parry has been called the “English Brahms.”). And how heartening it was to see such an outpouring of joyous patriotism by the real Britain, at the storied sites of Imperial London that have seen such historic demonstrations in the past (e.g. V-E Day, 1945). 

Now, how can these patriots be mobilized to win back their country? 

(Interested readers may wish to hear, on Chandos CDs, some of Parry’s other choral works, such as The Soul’s Ransom and The Lotus Eaters. All imbued with the spiritual faith of high Victorian Britain. His five symphonies and other music generally is not considered to be on the level of his choral music.)

 Laura writes:

As I said on the day of the wedding, “Kate Middleton was an elegant bride with beautiful warmth.” The opinions on the couple were not as black-and-white as you say. Most commenters, including myself, expressed a mixture of feelings.

I think everyone is agreed in their best wishes for this marriage. I hope everything you say about the couple is true and that they live happily ever after.

Joe Long writes:

I’m so happy there was a landau at the royal wedding. It brings to mind one of Kipling’s funniest poems, “The Sergeant’s Wedding” (which does not apply to this particular couple):

He was warned against her – that’s what made him look!
She was warned against him – that is why she took!
Wouldn’t hear no reason, went and done it blind;
We know all about ’em – they’ve got all to find!

So it’s cheer for the Sergeant’s wedding!
Give ’em one cheer more!
Grey gun-horses in the landau…
And a rogue is married to (etc!)

Every collection I’ve see this poem in, puts “etc” in the final line of the refrain rather than complete the obvious rhyme. A folk singer who put this poem to music, not only completes the rhyme but replaces “rogue” with, um, “man of illegitimate parentage”. My wife knows this musical version and precisely the point I’m making about someone (some two!) if I happen to be humming it.

References to other wedding traditions, in a Victorian British military wedding, abound in the rest of the poem, as does insight into human nature:

Won’t the Colonel praise his popularity?
We have scores to settle –
Scores for more than beer!
She’s the gal to pay ’em; that is why we’re here!
….
Bowin’ like a lady, blushin’ like a lad –
Who would guess, to see ’em,
Both is rotten bad?

James Kabala writes:

Maybe it takes a feminine eye to notice these things, but I see very little difference between Grace Kelly’s dress and Kate Middleton’s dress. As a commenter already noted, for many Americans a completely bare-shouldered wedding dress has become standard. If Kate’s example puts full-sleeved wedding dresses back in the public eye, that is a good thing. A B+ for modesty is not an A+, but it is better than a D or F.

Laura writes:

I’m going to refrain from giving Kate’s dress a grade. Some aspects of the dress, such as the lace sleeves and the skirt, were exceptional, and obviously it was of the highest in modern craftsmanship. But I don’t care if most women are getting married in bikinis, I still think it would have been better if the woman who may be the future queen of England got married in a dress with a neckline that was less plunging, as was the case with Grace Kelly’s dress and Princess Diana’s dress. (By noting Grace Kelly’s dress, I am not holding up Grace Kelly herself as an exemplar of modesty. The dress is not everything.)

Sarah writes:

This about Pippa Middleton and her huge following after the wedding is just too disturbing and gross. I wouldn’t want to upstage my sister on her wedding day.

Sarah adds:

I would like to further explain why I felt at once both solemn grandeur and disappointment in the royal event. As a Christian, I view marriage as a metaphor, a vivid living example of the love of God for his bride, the church. Marriage is a beautiful, cyclical, opportunity to live out the principles of love. A wedding isn’t just a party. It is a symbolic event that marks the entrance into another way of life. The dress, the ceremony, the many traditions: these are important because of what they signify. Traditions are important. I watched replays of the wedding with bated breath. I enjoyed the pomp and ceremony of it all. It was a grand event. And yet, I came away from it feeling disappointed. I am a hopeless romantic, and I was hoping to see something I could aspire to or look up to. Some moral bar set high enough for us all to want to rise toward. Just because the bride’s dress was more modest than most other brides didn’t mean much. She wasn’t JUST a bride. She is royalty. Does that count for something? Maybe not. I may be expecting too much.

Her sister’s dress was very immodest in my opinion. It was distracting and drew attention to her body as apposed to her virtue. The symbolism of the modest, covered bride wearing white is important. I thought her dress was lovely but I just felt irritated that she would wear a modern plunging neckline like that. I was hoping for a return to traditional moral values. The fact that the couple lived together before marriage basically makes it “OK” in the minds of young people to follow in their footsteps. I do wish them the very best, and again I hope and pray that this couple will hold true to their wedding vows for life. I think as a small town girl in the Midwest watching the royal wedding, I romantically was hoping for the traditional ideal of good, decent, moral people who hold tight to things like duty, honor, and fortitude. As a personal event I thought the wedding was beautiful. As a public, royal event, there were a few key elements that greatly bothered me and distracted from the grand solemnity of the occasion. Some of those hats were just plain circus costumes!

Mrs. P. writes:

 It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I present to you this picture of Queen Victoria’s wedding dress.

Laura writes:

Here is what appears to be a photographic representation of the dress instead of the painting above.

Mrs. P. writes:

I believe there is reason to think that this photo was taken at a later date. For one thing the two were both 21 years old when they married. In the photo, Victoria looks a lot older. It is likely that it was taken several years after their marriage. The description of her wedding dress indicates that it was all white, too. 

It was common practice back then for brides to continue to use their wedding dresses in some fashion after the ceremony. Often these wedding dresses were altered which explains the addition of colorful stuff to her dress as shown in both photos. Plus there is the brooch that Albert gave to her as a wedding gift. She is wearing it in the original picture of her that I sent you. She is not wearing it in the photo. In addition photography was very much in its infancy the year the couple married. I doubt that a photograph could have been produced at that time that would have been as clear as this.

Laura writes:

Victoria does indeed look older in this photo than she was at her wedding. It is reasonable to assume that she was posing in her wedding dress, and it may have been altered in various ways.

Please follow and like us: