The Royal Wedding

For people of my generation, the real royal wedding will always be the one that took place on July 29, 1981, when Diana Spencer shared vows with her Prince, who was some 14 years older (and at the time we all thought he was so old, and what would a girl her age want with a geezer like that). Diana brought romance back, she brought puffy-skirted wedding gowns back -- She brought hats back for crying out loud, after a good decade-and-a-half, where no one wore them at all except for little old grandmothers. -- and for a while there, all of us, were transfixed by her, even the ones who lost interest later on.

And nowadays we look rather pityingly, on the hype surrounding the wedding of William (who we remember in diapers) and Kate Middleton, who's kind of ordinary-looking really, kind of like Lindsay Lohan, only without the coke-fueled burnout.


But you know the funny thing is, that back in the day when we were dreamily watching Charles kiss Diana, and wishing a handsome Prince (or even a reasonably presentable one) would come and sweep us away too, our parents were looking on us rather pityingly as well. Because for them, the real royal wedding was the one between Princess Elizabeth and Philip of Mountbatten. Their hearts had already thrilled to the story of a young girl who'd served her country during World War II, who had to be given extra ration coupons just like any other bride in Postwar Britain just to be able to afford a trousseau, and who's special day was a bright spot for a whole nation, still struggling to rebuild. By comparison, what was the match between Charles and Diana, but the story of an aging playboy, picking his mate like he would a brood mare, rather than for love?



And the funny thing about that, is that their parents had found romance in the story of Edward VIII marrying Wallis Simpson. And before that... Well before that, came the very boring King George V and his equally boring wife Queen Mary.

And before them, came Queen Victoria's son Edward, who was barely out of diapers when he started having affairs with people, such as one with actress Nellie Clifden, that is supposed to have been the death of his father. Edward's wife Princess Alexandra was a lovely young woman, and she stood by him the whole rest of his life, and bore him several children. But there wasn't much romance in it, and these days she's forgotten (unlike the chair a Parisian whorehouse provided for her husband's lovemaking).

But before him, came the royal wedding of all royal weddings, the first one that was a popular romantic event, instead of just an alliance of state, when 21-year old Victoria promised herself to Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha -- And wrote gushily in her diary after their first night together that "I never, never spent such an evening. His excessive love and affection gave me feelings of heavenly love and happiness. He clasped me in his arms and we kissed each other again and again." -- and then lived together happily and romantically until his death some 20 years later.

Victoria's is the gold standard for all royal marriages, somehow more romantic than any other before or since. One reason for this, I think, is because Victoria was so demonstratively smitten with her husband, and so faithful to him during his lifetime -- The Victorian lady's comment about Cleopatra's tragic love affairs being "so unlike the home life of our own dear Queen" is famous. -- Another reason, I think, is because as the reigning Monarch herself, Victoria was the one who chose the man she loved, rather than just being chosen.




But another important reason I think, comes from the change in Britain's political system that was happening during Victoria's lifetime: At the beginning of the 19th century, King George III was a real Monarch, a man who actively ruled his country (at least until he was incapacitated by mental illness). By the end of it though, Victoria was mostly a figurehead, with the active governing responsibilities given into the hands of Parliament. At the beginning of the century, people had strong opinions about their King. They were in favor of him, or they were against him, rather the way people will take sides nowadays, about Barack Obama or Newt Gingrich. By the end of the century, no one bothered being against their Queen. She was a person with no power.

But she was more than a person, she was a symbol of her country too, and nowadays the Royal Family still holds the same position. It's kind of amazing when you really think about it: They're not very intelligent, they're not very attractive, but they represent the UK. And it's only very precious few people, who begrudge them the money to live in the style they're used to. -- That would be about $450,000,000 in U.S. dollars, as of 2009. If you have the time, you might take a minute to be grateful that the symbol of our country, here in the U.S., is a flag, which costs about $5-$20, and can be replaced very easily, if it gets damaged or you want a new one.

And then you might want to take another minute to wonder just how many more royal weddings the current Queen Elizabeth, who's already reigned for 59 years, is going to live to watch, before she finally dies and lets one of her offspring have a turn at the throne.



HyperSmash