Charlie Boy said that he was delighted but they took their time (pot and kettle). The wicked step-mother said it was “wicked”. Peter Broadbent, better known as the Bishop of Willesden, said that he gave them seven years and then they would start itching. Not very Christian, so some people said.
Public ooos and aahs have only just started. My hope that they get married in the Spring rather than the Summer has been realised. At least we do not have to endure more of the wedding build up than absolutely necessary.
It’s going to be a long few months regardless.
And we love the fact that they are getting married on the same day that Eva Braun married her ‘beau’.
So Wills and commoner Kate have decided to go the way of monogamy after eight years or so of courtship.
Courtship – what a peculiar phrase that is. Courting favour? Courting lust?
All people entering into marriage should think long and hard about what they are actually doing. This is allegedly a life-long commitment to one another, forsaking all others and remaining faithful as long as ye both shall live.
Can someone in their twenties really make that commitment when they have yet to develop and fully evolve as a human being? I’m not sure they can. All they can realistically do is live in the moment, believe that there is trust and hope that a relationship can withstand the day to day pressures of life, the making of babies and nurturing of a family and understand the notion that people are like sand; constantly moving, always developing and changing, never stagnating – hopefully.
So Charlie Boy is probably wrong, as ever. They have taken their time and I suppose they have considered this monumental decision but then again, isn’t this all about expectation and custom? Even though we all know that Wills and Kate have clearly had sex with one another, there is the expectation that those who hold high office, or are part of The Family Firm, should be married and not merely living together. Apparently, that marriage vow makes someone respectable, virtuous, honest.
Ed Miliband is the leader of the Labour Party and there are some that are pressurising him to stick a ring on his partner’s finger for the good of the party, to make him a more respectable leader. I hope he sticks his fingers up to such a suggestion, prominently and vociferously, showing quite clearly that a commitment to another human being does not have to be accompanied with a band of gold and such a commitment will not make him a better leader.
But let us return to the happy couple of the moment. Let us consider what is happening and what is going to happen to their relationship or what could happen to their relationship if they were the enlightened folk that we would like to be head of our nation (and let us ignore the fact that there are many of us who have more republican tendencies and find it all abhorrent that this family has such a privilege).
On the radio the other day, people were discussing fidelity and the fact that the Princes of Wales’s down the years have always had mistresses. This is a common factor for many of them, allegedly. In fact, all monarchs have had their flings as have their partners.
Edward the Seventh was a right randy whatsit. Lily Langtry was his most famous beau but he took lovers left, right and centre. The court of the time knew this. It was one of those open secrets in the post Victorian era.
The good queen herself obviously never had such dalliances, such was her commitment to her dead husband, but then there was the ‘weird’ relationship with Mr. John Brown. Apparently, they had adjoining bedrooms which some commented on saying that it was “contrary to etiquette and even decency”.
Edward’s son, George V also probably had affairs, maybe to get away from the stringency of the matriarch figure that was his wife.
Here’s the really strange thing. People have commented on all the ‘affairs’ that Edward the Eighth had before he married Mrs. Simpson. Surely he was the mistress! Can you have an affair if you are not married? Or is it just an improper relationship?
According to the person on the radio, only George VI and his daughter, our present queen, has remained faithful to one partner, though obviously the Queen’s consort has played away too, allegedly, though we are not allowed to know this because the thirty year rule of disclosure is censured about those members of the royal family who still live. Madness.
We all know the lurid stories of tampons and Prince Charles’s extra-marital bonking. Some might say that at least he was consistent, and stuck with his lover for decades; finally marrying the person that some thought he should have married in the first place. His commitment to Camilla clearly did not warrant a ring on the finger for many a year.
So it looks as though there is a custom, a trend. It looks as though the Firm has resolutely ignored the sanctity of marriage for generations.
Now the Royal Family survive because of tradition. Those who argue for the constitutional monarchy state that they bring in the crowds and generate a huge income for the country in royal tourism, probably not as much as us taxpayers pay but nobody seems to discuss that properly.
So if we accept this argument, perhaps we should also stick to other royal traditions, i.e. that the heir to the throne can get married and play the pomp and ceremony games but they should also be free to dangle their bits wherever they want.
Only of course, I would never suggest such a thing.
But in all seriousness, perhaps William and Katherine, as we now have to call her (I so wish she had been called Kelly or Tracy), should consider this infidelity question now and have a more enlightened approach to their marriage, keeping all customs going and introducing a few new ones.
In the name of equality, Wills should suggest that if he is free to have his dalliances then so should Kate be free to do what she wants, should the temptation come her way. She’s a good looking girl, in her way, and I am sure that there will be plenty of gorgeous men looking her way in the hope of bedding the future queen of England. It could be quite fun for the girl!
Seriously though, wouldn’t it be wonderful if William and Kate decided to have marriage vows that did not include the lie “forsaking all others”? Wouldn’t it be brilliant if they could explain on a Panorama programme that they are completely committed to one another but they do not rule out sexual relationships with others because there is a difference between intimacy with one and having sex with another? Wouldn’t it be splendiferous if they said that they were both young and did not know what life was going to throw at them, and that although they are committed to procreation and continuing the family line, they might also want to have a more liberal and free relationship with one another that enabled them to grow in all manner of ways, for the benefit of themselves and their subjects, who would benefit from the liberty that they allowed themselves?
It just makes one think that there are possibilities but in this nation of prudish and hypocritical behaviour around sex, the marriage of these two people will conform to the anarchic customs of royal traditions, where expectations of fidelity are borne out, and in a misogynist way, if Wills decides to play away, then that is also traditionally acceptable.
This wouldn’t happen in France. As it was in Edward VII’s time, the public acknowledge that Sarkozy and his wife are not likely to be faithful unto one another. There are other people in the marriage, not three as Diana famously said but four or maybe more.
Nobody bats an eyelid. French society has not disintegrated into anarchy because their leader has sex with more than one person. The presidency is not undermined. Mitterand’s mistress was at his graveside with his wife when they put him in the ground, and nobody really gave a damn.
I’m not suggesting that this has to be the way. If William and Kate want to have a life of committed monogamy, then so be it. It suits some people.
But if they did decide that they wanted other relationships, then I hope that it can be agreed between them. I hope that there is enough honesty in their forthcoming marriage where they can say to one another, “I find this person attractive” and have a talk about what having sex with that third party would actually mean.
And I mean this for both of them, not just the male in the relationship.
More and more women are finding opportunity and desire to have relationships outside a marriage.
I suppose that I should stop talking now in case I am sent to the tower. I am not suggesting that this marriage cannot work. In fact, it is more likely to succeed because they did not rush into this decision. However, I am merely pointing out that they should be mindful of the fact that even in the most traditional of places, there are hidden customs and there are desires and that honesty with one another is far more important than sexual fidelity.
But of course, that is only my opinion, and practicing the preaching is far more difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment