Posted on 04/28/2011 8:16:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
>Count me among the abstainers. I won't be watching over-the-top media coverage of Friday's wedding between Prince William and the "commoner" Kate Middleton.
After the "wedding of the century" of William's mother and father in 1981 and the ensuing drama that led to their divorce in 1996 and, eventually, her death on Aug. 31, 1997, the wedding of their son is unlikely to match the earlier nuptials in pomp or circumstance.
Pete Broadbent, the bishop of Willesden in northwest London, demonstrated just how cynical we have become about these fairy tale weddings. Last November, the bishop compared the couple to "shallow celebrities." He said their marriage is bound to fail. "I give the marriage seven years," he wrote on his Facebook page. But he wasn't through. He went on to trash Prince Charles and Princess Diana, saying of the media coverage of their wedding, "I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and I hope to avoid this one too."
The bishop, an anti-monarchist, cited a history of "more broken marriages and philanderers among these (royals) than not. They cost us an arm and a leg. ... Talent isn't passed on through people's bloodstock. The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist."
After the pro-monarchy British press strongly criticized his remarks, the bishop issued an apology.
He may be on to something, though, at least when one considers statistics for people who shack up, as we used to say before the modern and less judgmental, "in a relationship." Prince William and Kate have been living together in North Wales for several months.
How far the British have come from the days when Edward VIII was forced to give up the throne in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite. See all about it depicted in this year's best picture, "The King's Speech."
Once, women who married royalty had to prove their virginity. That included Lady Diana Spencer. Now they don't even have to promise to "obey" their husbands, which Diana refused to do in her vows and Kate won't do either. Why do we even call them "vows" anymore since they are so often broken? As defined by dictionary.com, a vow is, "a solemn promise, pledge, or personal commitment."
A recent front page USA Today story noted, "Cohabitation has become almost a rite of passage before marriage..." Yes, and with many speed bumps. According to figures published in 2002 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Cohabitation before the first marriage (is) associated with a greater chance of divorce."
And why are William and Kate getting married in a church when they don't appear to be regular churchgoers? The number of regulars at church in the UK has been in decline for years. According to a survey conducted in 2006 by Christian Research, a British think tank, only 6.3 percent faithfully attend services. Wouldn't William and Kate be more representative of their country's secular majority if a judge married them and they eschewed the religious trappings of Westminster Abbey?
At Charles and Diana's wedding, The Right Honorable George Thomas, speaker of the House of Commons, read from what is often called "the love chapter," 1 Corinthians 13. It is about love always being patient and kind, never envious, or proud and never failing. Love didn't fail them; they failed love. That's largely because too many define love as "a feeling" so when the "feeling" dies, the bond is broken.
I hope Bishop Broadbent is wrong. I hope I am wrong. I hope William and Kate really do live happily ever after, that their children and grandchildren never give them problems and that someone in the family will become king or queen. If the monarchy endures, that's the only certainty it can provide.
At 4 a.m. EDT on Friday I will still be asleep. When the ceremony begins around 6 a.m. EDT, I will be rising, brewing a cup of coffee and reading the papers, but won't turn on the television until the spectacle is over.
Nope, Cal, you will be right....
I wont be paying any attention myself, but a part of me wishes we ONLY had things as sweet and nice as a royal wedding to think about, and could enjoy it as a whole country celebration.
I haven’t decided whether to watch or not. So far though, I like William and Kate. I remember getting when I was a little girl to watch Princess Di’s wedding.
I see his point ... but I’ll still be checking out all the clothes. I don’t care if it’s a wedding or Royal Ascot ... I just want to see what the people are wearing.
Not that it makes one bit of difference in our lives, but I wish the couple the best. The difference between William and Kate vs. Charles/Diana is simple. Charles was in love with Camilla, had to marry someone “suitable” and did so. Seems to me that William is marrying someone he has established a long friendship/relationship with over time. I hate the term “commoner” and find that a rude term. She seems like a lovely, young woman and hopefully the two will remain happy. IMHO
So, the bishop's words don't really mean anything. His opinion is forceful and strong, unless somebody disagrees.
Way to be a leader.
I hope for the best for them. I know it will never happen in this world any more, but I wish the media would give them a chance, let them have their day, weeks, months, years. It seems anymore that we always look at the negative. Yes they are part of the Royal family but so what? They deserve their chance just as we all do.
It’s a British show. As long as they enjoy it , I think it’s cool.
I might watch some of it, since it makes more sense than listening to our President flying all over the country collecting money for his next coronation.
“If the monarchy endures, that’s the only certainty it can provide.”
The monarchy will not endure. The muzzies will ensure that it doesn’t.
“I hate the term “commoner” and find that a rude term.”
Well I would hope that you would. It seems to me we fought and won a very costly war to denounce exactly this type of crap.
I am an American. I don’t do royalty. If you tell me you are the king cuz god said said so, I’ll tell you “well that’s not what he told me.”
I am because I want to see her dress.
Ditto, Rose. I’d watch if they were two hard-working high achievers who got where they are by merit.
As it stands, they are meaningless at best.
Full disclosure: my grandparents were loaded with dough, but my parents spent about $100 on their wedding and most of that went to the priest...because they themselves hadn’t earned any serious money yet. Seriously, Mom didn’t even buy a new dress, and there was no honeymoon.
I suppose one could make the case that William wasn't about to marry someone without 'trying them out'.....in light of his parents disaster...
Still, where is the romance, the excitement of two people who've been living together for years and years...
Don't always agree with Cal, but he's right about this.
As the proud offspring of many generations of wogs and Fenians,I say BOLLOCKS
and RoseofTexas, you say"OBTW, I've noticed the mediaPUKES are all up in a leather over president ZERO and his demon wife NOT being invited. Have you noticed how vicious they have been of late over the Royal wedding. THANK YOU Will and KATE for snubbing this @$$HOLE and his buffoon wife!!"
Agree with you both!
It's a nice break from what we're experiencing in this country with the deliberate destruction of our country - to watch the 'fairytale' of a beautiful young lady becoming a Princess as she marries her handsome Prince. They both seem to be genuinely nice people.
As for the ignoramuses that cluck on about all the money being spent - get a clue.
Who GETS all the money being spent? Working people and people with businesses. This is the way money should be 'distributed.' Not forcefully taking it from some and giving to others who are sitting on their nether regions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.