Familiarity can be comforting, even when it’s a thousand-year-old patriarchal institution
It can also make you feel old, as I’m feeling today.
(Break from politics, folks. Too damn depressing.)
Anyhoo, today’s big Patriarchy Forever news is, of course, the official engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton. It makes me feel old since I well remember the official engagement of his parents. I remember the ring, the Shy Di feathered hairdo, the ill-fitting suit, the whole deal. It was so appalling that the royal family was still insisting on a virgin bride, which is why they needed a young pup like Diana. Poor girl. At any rate, that’s one difference between 1981 and 2010. Nobody gives a hoot about virginity anymore. Prince William and Kate have been living together for nine years.
The press conference also cracked me up:
William says of the ring, “It was my way of making sure my mother didn’t miss out on today, on the excitement.”
As if she’s actually there in the ring.
Yes, yes, I know what he meant, but still. It cracked me up because William’s great-great-great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria carried a picture locket of her late husband Albert with her everywhere. When she went on vacation travels to the continent, she would show Albert the sights by holding up the locket. “Look, Albert, the Florence Cathedral!”
42 Responses to “Familiarity can be comforting, even when it’s a thousand-year-old patriarchal institution”
-
myiq2xu says:
From all the stories I’ve seen Prince Charlie wasn’t a virgin groom. Not even close.
For years before he met Diana he was a notorious “playboy.”
November 16th, 2010 at 4:56 pm EST -
votermom says:
I’m glad Prince William is tying the knot before he loses all his hair.
/shallow -
riverdaughter says:
It looks like a bad omen to me but maybe the kid is thinking that the ring is a way of reminding everyone how badly they treated his mother. She wasn’t a saint. She was merely human. That’s what I see in that ring.
-
ellie says:
Hey, just think about what a royal wedding will do for the British economy.
-
Lori says:
Charles’ horrible girlfriends, the then-married Camilla included, thought that they could control the very young Diana – a notion quickly undone after the marriage.
Ahhh, the best laid plans…
-
myiq2xu says:
Prince William and Kate have been living together for nine years.
It took him that long to convince her to wear his dead mother’s engagement ring from her failed marriage.
Maybe Kate is superstitious.
-
Violet Socks says:
I don’t think the ring is a bad omen. It’s what you make of it. It’s my understanding that the ring is Prince William’s single most precious inheritance from his mother. I’ve also read (though I don’t know for sure) that Diana told William she wanted him to give the ring to his bride some day. And while the ring may signify pain and a failed marriage to outside observers, how do we know how Diana herself saw it? I’m quite sure William knows better than any of us how his mother felt about that ring.
Besides, William himself is a product of that “failed marriage.”
-
Gayle says:
“It took him that long to convince her to wear his dead mother’s engagement ring from her failed marriage.” HA!!
Violet’s 100% right about the ring, of course.
But that quote is hilarious. In a slightly evil kind of way, which I need right now. Thanks!
-
Unree says:
I too remember the wedding of Diana and Charles and even then I was struck by the fixation on the bride’s virginity. Strictly speaking, Violet, I think the royal family was insisting not on a virgin bride but on someone who had been a virgin before she got engaged to Charles. The two almost certainly had (condoned) premarital sex after the engagement was announced.
Why care? I remember a man-on-the-street quote from a tabloid, something like “Wouldn’t do to have some chap about, saying he’d slept with the Queen.” What a relief for William and Kate Middleton not to have to worry about that shit. Thankfully it was dropped when Prince Andrew got engaged a few years later.
-
Violet Socks says:
Strictly speaking, Violet, I think the royal family was insisting not on a virgin bride but on someone who had been a virgin before she got engaged to Charles.
Yes, that’s right. Couldn’t have a “past.”
The two almost certainly had (condoned) premarital sex after the engagement was announced.
Not according to Diana’s biographers! She wanted to and even got into bed with him one night, but he held off till after the wedding.
-
Violet Socks says:
I was talking to my mother about it tonight. It’s just such a relief for everyone not to have this medieval hang-up with virginity and such. Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden married her longtime live-in lover this past summer, a guy who used to be her personal trainer.
-
Grace says:
Patriarchy is still so alive and well! With the engagement of these two, the stupid commentators still ushering stupid remarks in 2010, like “another Cinderella story,” meaning the female commonner marrying and “catching” the beautiful prince who finally acquiesces to “settle down.”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but the way I see it, some things never change. I have been hearing that type of comments as long as I can remember. Conclusion: virgin or no virgin, it is still the same patriarchal-medieval-feudal mindset. And depressing too….same as the politics of the moment.
-
Violet Socks says:
There are certainly a lot of silly comments about, I agree. But does “Cinderella story” necessarily mean female snagging a man? I think of it as a rags-to-riches thing myself. Prince Daniel (former personal trainer, now husband to the Crown Princess of Sweden) has been called a Cinderella story. Kate Middleton comes from the middle-class. Though her parents made a fortune in their business, they started out as regular workers with humble backgrounds. And now Kate is going to be Queen of England.
I admit I am enjoying the story. I couldn’t care less about movie stars and “celebrities” and those horrible reality stars, whose appeal baffles me. But I’m enough of an anglophile and historyphile that I find the royals interesting.
What I am focusing on is the positive changes in the past 30 years. No virginity nonsense. No need for an aristocratic or royal-born consort. And it looks to me as if William and Kate love each other deeply and are utterly set as a couple. So I feel happy for them.
I also enjoy Kate’s style. There is not a single Hollywood celebrity or political fashionista in the U.S. who dresses decently. They all look utterly ridiculous; whenever I see pictures in the news it just makes my eyes hurt. But Kate has class and excellent style.
-
Sameol says:
I wonder if he gave any thought at all to having the stone reset? It may not seem like a bad omen to him, but I wonder how she feels about it. Telling your fiancé his dead mother with the tragic personal life’s ring is creepy, unwieldy, and maybe kind of ugly depending on your taste is one of those awkward to broach subjects.
-
Violet Socks says:
From what I’ve read, those two know each other very well and Kate is not remotely deferential to William.
Personally, I don’t think the ring is creepy at all. It’s gorgeous in my opinion. And Diana apparently treasured it enough to continue wearing it even after her divorce. I really think this whole idea that the ring symbolizes something negative is totally from outsiders. It’s my impression that Diana considered the ring a remembrance of a happier time, and William definitely treasures it. Gosh, I think it’s sweet that he gave it to Kate.
-
Sameol says:
It is sweet that he wants her to have it, it’s just that it’s her engagement ring. She can’t ever take it off without causing an absolute press frenzy, even if she decides eventually that it’s too freighted. If it were me, I might have used another ring to take the pressure off.
-
Nessum says:
They always look so utterly sweet and comfortable together. They quite obviously know each other well and enjoy beeing together.
And I’m pretty sure she cherishes her engagement ring first worn by the mother-in-law she regrets never having met. She even displays it in the same way Diana did: Showing it off with her hand resting on her fiancée’s arm. To me that’s a nice, telling gesture.
-
votermom says:
It’s very traditional in British upper classes to have an heirloom wedding ring passed down generations. (Was the ring made fro Di? or also passed down?)
I agree with Violet, it’s also very sweet for a man to give the ring from his much loved Mom to his fiance. Symbol of true love, etc. -
ellie says:
My daughter-in-law is wearing my son’s grandmother’s ring. My mother-in-law left it to me to decide if she would have given it to her grandson’s wife. I know she would have adored her granddaughter-in-law had she lived to meet her, and it was a no-brainer decision. When my son put the ring on his bride’s finger, it was like his grandma was smiling at him. I think William giving Kate his mother’s ring is a time honored tradition even for us commoners.
-
Grace says:
I already made it obvious in my previous comments that I disagree with the idea of paying attention to the life of “royal subjects,” and that I question the rational for their existence in the first place.
I also see the ring, which is given to the woman and paid for by the man, who in turn is supposed to propose marriage (because, has anybody seen it done the other way around?), as another symbol of patriarchy. It’s just that many women and men, in my opinion, consciously or unconciously have come to see this as something “natural,” socially proper, and culturally sanctioned.
But that’s just the way I see it, of course….and I mean no offense to those who may disagree with my views.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
I think Kate Middleton is smart to never say an effing word to the press. Possibly William warned her about that. God knows it ruined his mother’s life in so many ways.
I hope they can find their own way through this, and be as happy as that kind of life allows a woman to be. I find the whole “royalty” thing kinda creepy, because it is so patriarchal. Here’s hoping Kate and William will usher in a new era.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Totally agree, Violet. Diana designed that ring herself, based on her own mother’s ring, so it’s as much a symbol of her share of William’s heritage as it is a memento of her “being,” however he sees it. To me it’s very touching that he relates his love for his mum with his love for Kate, and says so publicly. So obviously his mother’s son. I should think Kate has known him long enough to accept and value his sensitive nature. And yes, it’s a gorgeous ring !
Whether or not he intends it, ensuring the ring will remain on display sends a proper f-you to those who failed to appreciate Diana in her lifetime. To add a dash of politics, it strikes me that the shabby way Diana was treated by the uptight Windsor clan parallels how Bill and Hillary Clinton continue to be envied and undermined by America’s political “royalty.” In both cases, the common people rebel.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
I am embarrassed that I know more about the details of the royals than any of you! Actually, Diana did not design the ring, though she picked it out. It was straight out of the jeweler’s catalog and was brought to her on a tray with all the other rings to choose from. She selected it and apparently loved it. But the fact that it was from the catalog meant that everybody knew how much it cost (and in fact could order the same ring for themselves). Made a bit of a stir at the time. “Why didn’t Charles have a new ring made for her?” Blah blah. But this way Diana got to pick out what she wanted.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
LOL, that’s my mistake for believing Wikipedia! And look, the entry has since been corrected to say she “selected a large £30,000 ring consisting of 14 diamonds surrounding a sapphire, similar to her mother’s engagement ring.”
This page was last modified on 18 November 2010 at 01:03.
Geez, the Diana’s ring know-it-alls are out in force tonight!
*****A
-
Cate says:
Thank you, Violet, for ‘knowing about the Royals’…and Diana, of course (just one more reason to like you). But, Diana (I even like typing her name,….she is endlessly fascinating to me as well as having a special place in my heart.
-
Violet Socks says:
Grace said:
I also see the ring, which is given to the woman and paid for by the man, who in turn is supposed to propose marriage (because, has anybody seen it done the other way around?), as another symbol of patriarchy.
Yes, of course you’re right. It’s just that individual items belonging to individual people in our lives tend to have more personal significance. If I someday have my mother’s diamond wedding ring, I won’t look on it as a symbol of patriarchy. I will look on it as a symbol of my beloved mother.
It’s interesting to do thought experiments to see how old-fashioned/discredited/archaic something has to be before its negative associations completely trump personal sentimentality. For example, if by some bizarre horrific chance my mother had a chastity belt to bequeath to me, it’s difficult to imagine thinking of it as a lovely reminder of my mother. More like something you’d want to bury in the yard and say an exorcism over.
-
Sophie says:
Grace said: “I disagree with the idea of paying attention to the life of “royal subjects,” and that I question the rational for their existence in the first place.
I’m British AND a “royal subject” and although I too sometimes question the rationale of my existence, it’s still kind of hurtful to find that you do also. When I hear “patriarchal institution” and “royalty” I think of our long reigning, most admired rulers – Boudicca, Elizabeth I, Victoria, Elizabeth II and have to admit to not quite getting it, but then attitudes towards women in the UK have been, for many years, wildly different than in the US in my opinion.
-
Grace says:
Violet:
I can see your point about the personal significance of individual items belonging to individual people, despite their being symbols of patriarchy. It makes a lot of sense.
However, one thing doesn’t preclude the other one. Actually they quite often co-exist, or at least that’s my personal experience. An example that comes to mind is that, even though I never believed in marrying by the church, I have got emotionally touched when some people that I care about have done it and genuinely believe in it. Why? because I know what it means to them to share that moment with me.
So I can still love them without loving what they do, unless of course it’s something preposterous or hurtful to others.
-
Briar says:
Oh dear. I came here from the UK looking for a refuge from Royal Marriage Mania and the attendant “St Diana of the *ME* generation” worship. Surely Violet Socks will still be in the real world, I thought. It looks as if the US is just as hung up on royal celebrity watching as the Brits. I don’t want to know any more about the Royals than I already do, thank you very much. I am far more concerned about my friend Jean, who has Parkinsons and Alzheimers and desperately needs both her housing benefit and enhanced social care if she isn’t to lose her home. Both are under threat from the evil Government currently beaming about the aforesaid marriage (not least because it let Dave sneak out a U-turn on employing his vanity image fixers as no 10 flunkies).
-
votermom says:
For example, if by some bizarre horrific chance my mother had a chastity belt to bequeath to me, it’s difficult to imagine thinking of it as a lovely reminder of my mother.
Ok, that made me literally Laugh Out Loud.
I like traditions involving jewelry; and I don’t want to have to see them as symbols of patriarchy. FWIW, jewelry was once the only way a woman could save wealth.
As far as the idea of Brits being obsessed with royalty, please, I think they are very sensible about it. They have their royalty that doesn’t rule, and they have their pols that that they have no problem kicking out when they don’t perform. I think USA politics would improve a LOT if we just created an elected Monarch who didn’t actually have any power. And abolish the Senate while we’re at it.
-
Bess of Hardwick says:
I was less interested in the provenance of the ring than the fact that Prince William is about to marry a bourgeoise. She will also have the first college degree of any Queen, although she’s generally regarded as a professional underachiever who’s been sitting around waiting for Wills to pop the question. Still, she seems bright enough, at least to have snagged the big kahuna, who always said he wouldn’t get married before thirty.
Diana may not have been the brightest of bulbs herself but it is plain that her children adored her. Not a bad legacy, that.
I never thought Charles was a bad man. He was/is a one-woman man who couldn’t, at the time, marry the one woman once he’d found her. Camilla’s a country lady of no great beauty or fashion, but she’s held his love and loyalty for decades. And in the end, Diana was destroyed by the forces she deployed against the royal family.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Not to worry, Briar. I’m sure Violet will be back to the depressing real world soon enough. This was a break for her, though unfortunately not for you! Busman’s holiday, yes?
-
votermom says:
Violet, spammy got me again. I have no idea why.
-
gxm17 says:
Okay, upfront I’ll say I’m in the anti-Royals column. I’m with Briar. “St Diana of the *ME* generation” – priceless!
So Sophie I mean no offense, but did they change it so that the first born heir, or even most suitable heir, is first in line to the throne? Don’t they still exhaust all the male options before they settle for a woman? And Kate will never actually be Queen of England. She will be the King’s wife and if something happens to the King her son will take the throne. Yes? If so, yep, that’s patriarchy.
And sorry Royal fans, but I think that ring is hideous. If someone gave me a ring that garishly pedestrian I’d break up with him on the spot, mommy’s ring or not.
-
anna says:
My sister didn’t have engagement rings when she got married, and as for wedding rings, her and her husband got 2 simple gold bands (the same, except for size) and split the cost. I think that’s a nice equal way to do it, if you like the ring tradition and symbolism. Unlike chastity belts, after all, just wearing a ring doesn’t do any harm.
Briar, I am sorry to hear about your friend Jean. If you want to set up a page where people can donate to help, I’m sure we would give what we could.
-
Grace says:
Sophie (post # 27)
When I used the word “royal subjects” I meant the people with royal titles (queens, kings, princes, counts, etc.). I didn’t mean U.K., English or British citizens, unless of course you happen to be part of the royalty.
Perhaps it was the wrong choice of words due to my not being well-versed on the subject (no pun intended), but what I question is not their existence as human beings, but the fact that as a social institution, their members benefit from privileges paid for by the citizens, also called tax-payers.
-
Bess of Hardwick says:
It also occurs to me that with this marriage the royal family will be more Anglicized than it’s been in centuries. Because both Charles and his son married Englishwomen (and commoners) instead of foreign princesses – not that there are many of those left — the heavily Teutonic Mountbatten-Windsors fka Saxe-Coburg-Gothas will be closer to “mere English,” as the first Elizabeth put it, than ever before.
-
Carmonn says:
I think William giving Kate his mother’s ring is a time honored tradition even for us commoners.
Oh, of course. I don’t think many people find it odd that a ring is being passed down. What they find odd is that that particular ring is so closely associated with a wretched marriage that it seems like a bad omen. But, as Violet says, they may fel very differently about it. By a similar token, I always find it very funny that so many people continue to use Nick Lashay’s song for his wedding to Jessica Simpson as a wedding song. It seems like a bad start to a marriage to me, but guess they must like the song enough to counter the negative associations.
gxm17, I believe they DID just change the laws so that the firstborn will get it regardless of gender. I don’t follow these things too closely but someone was telling me about it recently.
-
marylee says:
The Royal Family hasn’t been “English” since the first Elizabeth. Her heir James was a Scots and when the Stuarts ran out, the German Hanovers came in. Even the Queen Mother wasn’t English but Scotish. People only see the “privileges” that the royals have but don’t realize the work they do. Their lives are so structured that they know
where they will be this time next year. They have to go to events even if they would prefer to just stay home and put their feet up and they have to be pleasant to everyone (I’m thinking Ronnie and Nancy here). They have to be on constant alert not to be doing anything that could be photographed and made fun of (I remember a picture of the Queen when her dress flew up in the wind and how it was plasted all over the papers). And the Queen has a wonderful institutional memory of the last 60 years and her Prime Ministers have all commented on that fact. She reads all of the government papers that are in the many red boxes she gets each day and I’m sure she has been preparing Charles to take over.
Everybody just sees the parties, jewelry, clothes etc. The Royal Family has a deep sense of duty to their country and what they owe to it. Diana had her good points but she was a very controlling person and was not shy about telling her version of things. Unfortunately that is what most people know. William is not only his mother’s son but also has a lot of his father in him – and he seems to be a pretty good guy and Kate looks like a good down to earth gal. I hope they will be very happy. -
Sophie says:
Grace: I thought that was perhaps what you meant, but I wasn’t sure. In order to receive any tax-payer funds, royals must appear on the Civil List and only very senior royals appear on it. It costs each tax-payer around $1.10 per year which money goes towards maintaining various offices for civic duties undertaken by senior royals, and which amount is a pittance compared to what American and British tax-payers pay for their mostly useless politicians. All other expenses are paid for by the royals themselves, afterall, they are immensely wealthy. I don’t know of anyone (well maybe Briar and some in the republican movement) who begrudges them this paltry amount, since they all pay taxes and the tourist revenue they bring in just by existing, is enormous.
-
DancingOpossum says:
It’s because of poor doomed Katherine Howard (Henry’s VIII’s fifth wife) that royal brides had to be subjected to the purity/virginity test for so many centuries. Henry, who had become completely paranoid and insane by this point, was driven ’round the bend by Katherine’s possession of a “past” and handed down yet another in his long line of increasingly tyrannical and self-serving law, in this case, that every queen had to be a “virgin untouched”. Before that, it wasn’t *that* big a deal. In most cases, girls could skate on their lack of virginity by saying they had sex with a man on the understanding that the couple was going to be married. Lots of blind eyes were turned to these supposed “engagements.”
Tragically, Katherine could have saved her neck if she had described her previous dalliance that way, as an engagement–which in fact it was. But she was too confused, too young, and too unsophisticated to realize this, so she insisted she was innocent, i.e., “pure” and when it turned out she wasn’t, she was put to death. (Of course, Henry forgot all about his own law when he chose a widow as his next wife. It’s good to be king, I guess.) -
okasha skatsi says:
The first Elizabeth was “mere English” only on her mother’s side. The Tudors were the illegitimate product of a love affair between a widowed French Princess (Henry V’s queen) and Owen Tudor, a Welsh officer in her household.
« People-watching | Home | Instalanched »
