Prince William is not a slave to tradition.
He and Kate Middleton are making arrangements for the wedding that are right for them - it will be traditional in many respects but contemporary in certain details.
Prince William will have a 'best man' rather than 'supporter'. Kate will arrive by car (although leave by Royal coach.) We read about all this on Clarence House Twitter updates.
It does not inevitably follow that the younger generation being less traditional than their forebears. Tony Blair used to complain in exasperation by the Prince of Wales was more of a traditionalist than The Queen.
Prince William and Kate Middleton are making arrangements for the wedding that are right for them. William will have a 'best man' rather than 'supporter' while Kate will arrive by car
This morning we discovered that Prince William will resist one modern orthodoxy. He will not be wearing a wedding ring. In this regard he will be following the example of his grandfather The Duke of Edinburgh rather than his father the Prince of Wales.
Kate will wear a wedding ring made with Welsh gold (assuming Prince Harry avoids losing it).
Prince William's choice in this regard is one of 'personal preference'. 'Prince William isn't one for jewellery,' a St James's Palace aide explained.
I am delighted by Prince William's decision. I have always regarded the practice of men wearing wedding rings as prissy and effeminate.
It's a matter for each married couple. Some of my best male friends wear wedding rings, etc. Yet I am cheered by Prince William taking a stand in this way.
The idea that there should be social pressure on them to do derives from the fallacy that men and women are the same and therefore should be expected to conform to the same procedures. Yet it often makes sense, for both sexes, for there to be variations that accept rather than confronting the realities of nature.
Kate will wear a wedding ring made with Welsh gold - assuming Prince Harry avoids losing it
Men and women are different - not just in the obvious physical sense but in their behaviour. That is not to say that one is better than the other. Both have strengths and weaknesses. But these differences should be not merely acknowledged but celebrated. What a drab, politically correct world it would be for them to be eradicated even if it were possible. How astonishing that stating such simple truths has in some way become a matter of controversy.
What of the argument that wearing a ring is a safeguard against adultery? For a woman it is useful in avoiding the embarrassment of misunderstanding with unwanted suitors. One difference for men is the custom, still overwhelmingly maintained, that it is the male who invites the female out on a date. So it is women rather than men who benefit from being protected against being pestered in this way.
Nor can it be regarded as an effective way to prevent wayward husbands going out on the pull. They could just take their wedding rings off.
Now we await confirmation of the wedding service itself. I hope that the beautiful language of the wedding service from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer will be used - without any fiddling around with the wording. That means Kate would promise to obey. But consider the 'checks and balances' in this particular verbal contract especially in terms of chronology.
Prince William would first have to agree when asked: 'Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?'
Only then would Kate agree to the proposition: 'Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?'
So any notion that a woman promising to obey a man in this context in some kind of humiliation is quite absurd. It lays down an ultimate dispute resolution process - but a husband can't just go round bossing his wife around in a manner that breaches his own wedding vows.
A wedding is a public declaration which often makes these personal decisions challenging. It is an especially public declaration for William and Kate with two billion viewers. Their decision in adapting some arrangements is fine. But there are other traditions that are worth defending.
No comments:
Post a Comment