-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Thoughts on Gay Marriage
March 27, 2013 | 96 comments
-
Baseball Saints and Sinners
March 13, 2013 | 13 comments
A Further Perspective
Sacred Cows
So another royal wedding has come and gone.
Quickly eclipsed by the precipitous earthly departure of Osama bin Laden, last week’s big story was the royal wedding between Kate and William of Great Britain, proving that storybook endings come in many varieties. Yet as satisfying as was the fall of the world’s vilest terrorist to countless Americans, still millions more stayed up until all hours to view the British nuptials over the weekend.
Now, I didn’t watch any actual coverage of the wedding, but the few clips I happened to catch featured the happy couple exchanging vows with mutual looks of stoic endurance, as in: “Well, after all, it is rather a bloody bore, but this is what the old folks expect, so we might as well grin and bear it!” In fact, in one of the bytes, they were nearly giggling, as if they were treating the whole thing as a big spoof of something really, really important. And, as it turns out, maybe that’s just what it was; a spoof.
It seems that the royal couple have been playing house of Windsor for the past few years; cohabitating on and off since their university days. Now unfortunately, this type of premarital partnership has been going on for decades; millions of folks all over the world have taken to living outside of marriage in pursuit of I don’t know what. Some of the more honest claim that marriage is an outdated and useless convention, unnecessary to modern happiness, while others feel that a trial period is needed; a sort of audition for the real thing, to see if the two participants will be “compatible” in the long run.
What rankles though, is not the disregard for biblical prohibitions against such behavior, since fewer and fewer people acknowledge any desire or even reason, to pay attention to the word of God. But why then, do countless couples seek the “legitimacy” of a church wedding after years of non-connubial canoodling? These questions become even more compelling when applied to the last royal family in the world to which anyone really pays attention; one that seems hell-bent on breaking all records for plebeian behavior.
What a difference from the days when members of the Royal Family were looked to as paragons of British gentility. One thinks of the young and future Queen Elizabeth, whose parents famously refused to leave England during WWII. Listen to a 1940 BBC broadcast where she addresses her subjects: “We are trying to do all we can to help our gallant sailors, soldiers and airmen, and we are trying, too, to bear our share of the danger and sadness of war. We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well.”
But of course, that sort of noblesse oblige was of another time. At this time however, we have lewd photos of Princess Kate’s lady in waiting, her ubiquitous sister Pippa, as well as other tales of naughtiness by various royal rapscallions. Where is the moral underpinning of this bunch?
But don’t expect any type of correction to be forthcoming from local religious authorities. Word has it that Dr. John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and the Church of England’s second most senior cleric, has actually endorsed the premarital living arrangements of Kate and Wills. Ignoring Christian teaching against sexual relations outside marriage, Dr. Sentamu said he had married many such couples adding, “We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, they want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow. For some people that’s where their journeys are.”
Remarkable remarks by the Archbishop indeed, but maybe not so surprising given that Prince William will eventually be his boss, since if and when he becomes king, he will also inherit the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a title that has come down through the ages from Henry VIII; a fellow who had bovine problems all his own.
And so another royal wedding has come and gone, and with it, all the attendant nonsense. But let us earnestly hope that, in the words of another famous Englishman, it does not turn out to be “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/04/sacred-cows
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- What’s in a Name?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
MoeBlotz| 5.4.11 @ 6:22AM
Who is Princess Kate? Mzz. Middleton had no title before marrying the future king,she was a commoner. Kate and William are now officially known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Dave| 5.4.11 @ 8:33AM
Thanks, MoeBlotz. You're absolutely right. And furthermore, with rare exception only women born to the title are allowed to use Princess before their given names. Even Diana, who was and is constantly referred to as Princess Diana by the public and the media, never officially held that title.
SugartownSuper| 5.4.11 @ 1:42PM
Not to be pedantic, but Diana became Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles. That title was "official" and arose directly from her marriage. Camilla Parker-Bowles "officially" became Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles, although she is rarely referred to as such due to the obsession of the media and the public with the prior incumbent. Miss Middleton, lacking a title in her own right [unlike Princess Diana who was Lady Diana Spencer by virtue of her father being Earl Spencer] would have been correctly addressed as Princess William of Wales had not HM The Queen created her AND her husband Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. In the event that Prince William [presently only Heir Presumptive] should die without issue and prior to the death of his father, Katherine will still be Duchess of Cambridge in her own right. Should there be issue of their marriage and her husband predecease his father, then that issue, regardless of gender, would become Heir Presumptive, or if Prince Charles had in the meantime succeeded to the throne, Heir Apparent. I grant you that it is all a bit complicated...
Dave| 5.4.11 @ 3:12PM
I don't think we disagree. Here's what I'm saying: Diana was Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales before the divorce, and then Diana, Princess of Wales (no HRH) after. Those were her official titles. Not saying she wasn't a princess. I only make the distinction that she was not born to the title (as was, say Princess Elizabeth before she became Queen), and was therefore not entitled to the style "Princess Diana" ("Princess" before her given name). If you want complicated, try her full official title while married to Prince Charles, which was Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland.
SugartownSuper| 5.4.11 @ 4:05PM
You are correct; my apologies as I misconstrued your phrase "...never officially held that title." The distinction between modes of address: "Princess Diana" vs. "Princess Charles" vs. "Diana, Princess of ..." gets a little grey!
We neatly resolved this issue in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 of The Constitution...
mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:50PM
Who gives a s*&^! These people are the wealthiest welfare entitlement leeches in the Western world. England and her people should be deeply ashamed to support these creeps and the property they own. This is a splendid example of the dog going back to its own vomit.
Appleby| 5.4.11 @ 6:55AM
Anybody who has a noticing mind has long ago figured out that the Anglican Church worships sex, not God. I watched the actual wedding, having discovered it was taking place during the time I was getting ready for work. The music was beautiful; Kates dress was much more stylish and modest than Dianas was; everyone except the Prince Andrew contingent was presentable, and all in all it was a great show.
As the Royal Couple were being advised of what marriage is really all about, though, the camera lingered on Sir Elton John and his, er, um, whatever, and I thought to myself, *He doesnt mean a word he is saying, and everybody knows it.* Still, the words he was saying were true and correct, and I pray some of them sank in.
It would be nice to think that some day people would go back to understanding that life from birth to death is about more than sex, but right now it doesnt seem very likely.
Mimi| 5.4.11 @ 9:22AM
Elton John and Bernie Taupin's relationship is about affection.
Affection is the driving force of same-sex marriages, just as it is in traditional marriages.
I was delighted to see them together at the wedding, along with David Beckham and his wife, who, by the way, are very close friends with Elton and Bernie.
Dave| 5.4.11 @ 10:15AM
Elton John's partner is not Bernie Taupin. It's David Furnish, and that's who he was with. Bernie Taupin has been Elton's long-time SONGWRITING partner.
KS| 5.4.11 @ 10:16AM
Elton John attended the wedding with his civil partner, David Furnish.
Mimi| 5.4.11 @ 10:29AM
How careless of me! I stand corrected!
This is what happens when you achieve the age of 74, I suppose. At this age, we tend to make more factual errors.
mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:56PM
Elton and Taupin wrote some beautiful and multi dimensional music but Elton's homosexual lifestyle is a perversion of the created order. It is simply a biological perversion and likely a psychosexual fixation. I will never throw the baby out with the bath water but all the rationalization in the world cannot change the facts.
jacob| 5.4.11 @ 4:11PM
Created order? You're a fool, Mames.
"How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves if he wants them around?" - Minnesota Representative Steve Simon, May 2, 2011.
And Mr. Preacherman, God did "create them, didn't he?
Mimi| 5.4.11 @ 4:14PM
Brilliant riposte, Jacob!
We've got some Neanderthals on AmSpec, haven't we?
mames| 5.4.11 @ 6:16PM
The penis was not designed to enter the anus. The anus is an exit not an entrance. Their behavior does nothing to propagate the human race. It is irrational to accept this behavior as "normal". God did not create homosexuals they are made in the minds of the individuals who practice the behavior - and not necessarily in a conscious way. This is not Neanderthal thinking it is reason and logic.
p offed| 5.4.11 @ 8:19PM
You wouldn't know reason and logic if it bit you on the ass.
The animal world is full of homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexual behavior, but it is not nearly as prevalent.
As for your fixation on the anus, most gays engage in oral sex, just as most heteros engage in oral sex.
Enough of your bigoted hysteria.
mames| 5.4.11 @ 6:19PM
Using this logic all dangerous and destructive behavior is created by God. If you believe we are created with a free will then God created us but did not program us for dangerous behavior that is our choice. We are accountable and responsible.
p offed| 5.4.11 @ 8:22PM
You could NOT change your sexual orientation just as gays CANNOT change theres.
Oral sex. That's what most gays practice, but much more frequently, those in loving relationships--as my partner and I are blessed to be in--engage in affectionate cuddling.
Don't be so dirty minded Mames. You have a disgusting mind.
Jacob| 5.4.11 @ 9:28AM
"the camera lingered on Sir Elton John and his, er, um, whatever . . ."
The word is "partner," Appleby-- partner. Got it?
Appleby| 5.4.11 @ 2:45PM
I have heard several different titles for the fellow, including "husband" -- so, whatever.
Sunshine over L.A.| 5.4.11 @ 4:17PM
And, from what I've read, David Furmish calls Elton "husband," also.
DeeDee| 5.4.11 @ 8:30PM
And Elton has done remarkable philanthropic work through the years. He has helped so many people.
And he's got talent!
Alan Brooks| 5.4.11 @ 12:22PM
"It would be nice to think that some day people would go back to understanding that life from birth to death is about more than sex, but right now it doesnt seem very likely."
Good: less sex for you, more for me.
junkyard infidel| 5.4.11 @ 2:41PM
everyone lock up your farm animals, brooksie is on the prowl !
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:29PM
Alan, that was beautifully put and witty. Come on folks, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Gran Torino| 5.4.11 @ 7:31AM
Wow, you sound seriously bitter. Who cares that future queens of England are no longer virgins (poor old Diana having had to endure a published ob/gyn report the eve of her marriage--in 1981--this is progress? sounds medieval)?
Wasn't it better that William bucked tradition and actually got to marry the woman HE wanted instead of some toothy horror of what the "aristocracy" might have had to offer (and if she was still a virgin in that crowd, it meant she was either hideous or retarded or both)? He must have noticed his own father was pressured into a loveless marriage for the single purpose of producing an heir--is that preferable? Not forgetting William himself was the obligatory heir--don't you think that watching the very public disintegration of his parents' marriage might have had a wee bit of impact?
Was Pippa a vamp? Did she ever imagine her own sister would actually bag Will? Don't the young still have a chance to blow off steam? (And wow, wrapped in toilet paper is pretty tame these days--check out Lindsay Lohan's latest antics.)
It remains of course to be seen to what extent Pippa toes the line vis-à-vis her sister's new position, but what were you doing ages 18 - 27? Checking your dance card?
My take is a) they both looked gorgeous and very happy, and b) William just might have revived the British monarchy for another generation anyway.
May God bless them.
Jon| 5.4.11 @ 8:45AM
Here! Here!
Roscoe| 5.4.11 @ 10:34AM
Jon; That would be "Hear, hear".
Jampot| 5.4.11 @ 10:54AM
Mercy! It seems that many of today's posters are confused seniors, Mimi and Jon particularly.
Jon| 5.4.11 @ 10:55AM
Here! Here!
DM| 5.4.11 @ 12:41PM
"...(and if she was still a virgin in that crowd, it meant she was either hideous or retarded or both)".
What a horrbly degrading comment. Find a better way to express yourself.
Rupert T.| 5.4.11 @ 4:25PM
I do with people over the age of 70 would not post on this site. Their minds are too messed up to express a coherent thought.
Are you over 70's listening? Please do us all a favor and refrain from posting your scrambled comments.
Mimi| 5.4.11 @ 4:26PM
Rupert, surely you mean "wish" instead of "with."
jacket06| 5.12.11 @ 8:57AM
Maybe Rupert T. just lisps! Don't be to hard on the young couple. Even in "Prim & Proper" Victorian England, most every married Gentleman of means had his own Mistress, and his wife had her own Lover. One might say that today. the youth in England - and in the western world - don't put on as much a facade as was done in the past.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:28PM
I'm happy to have Seniors posting, especially as they tend to be more witty and learned than most of their juniors. (I, for the record, am 48.)
Only Republican at Woodstock| 5.5.11 @ 12:44AM
I would rather see the ones with IQs BELOW 70 stop posting.
Appleby| 5.4.11 @ 2:48PM
Since Charles is Heir Apparent, as opposed to Heir Presumptive, it was incumbent upon him under British law to marry a virgin (for reasons that ought to be obvious). William had no such instructions, seeing his chance of being King are rather more remote.
Chef Schnauzer| 5.4.11 @ 7:50AM
Well, that was a pointless waste of pixels.
della street| 5.4.11 @ 9:16AM
'Living together' is not the same as a very public commitment.
I think their living arrangements were the only way to provide some security for Catherine, and keep the relentless papparazzi at bay.
It has been said that William believes his mother was chased to her untimely death, moving the woman he loves into his home, provided her with some protection, she could not have had otherwise.
Even if her family could afford bodyguards, it would have looked very improper.
KS| 5.4.11 @ 10:18AM
So they shacked up for security reasons only? Please.
Seek| 5.4.11 @ 1:13PM
One does not need to "shack up" in order to get wild. Sharing a mailing address is not a sin or a crime so far as I know. Most conservatives have lived with a member of the opposite sex prior to marrying -- I can personally vouch for it.
Only Republican at Woodstock| 5.5.11 @ 12:41AM
You can personally vouch for it that most conservatives have lived with a member of the opposite sex prior to marrying??? How do you do that? Do you know all of us? Are you a very active peeping Tom? How does that work?
Seek| 5.5.11 @ 1:02PM
Actually, pal, I happen to know dozens of conservatives, especially activists and policy wonks. These are the people writing all those right-of-center papers you read. If this makes me a Peeping Tom, you've got a pretty expansive definition.
There is nothing wrong, legally or morally, with living with a person prior to marrying him or her. Try it before you knock it.
ncatty| 5.4.11 @ 10:06AM
I was hopeful about the lewd photos link but it looks more like a sorority party.
Kelly Staples| 5.4.11 @ 10:51AM
The faithful, always in the name of their invisible buddy, have an obsession with the sex lives of those less pure. Some things never change.
KS| 5.4.11 @ 11:15AM
How interesting, in light of the fact that this couple chose to be married in the eyes of their "invisible buddy."
Cincinnatius| 5.4.11 @ 10:56AM
Bravo! You summed it up so very well with the words of Mr. Shakespeare, truly, "it signifies nothing"!
Don Carlson| 5.4.11 @ 10:58AM
O course, there will soon be a very short article in Spectator to clarify both what Ms. Fabrizio attempted to say here, and why any readers should care.
Martin Owens| 5.4.11 @ 12:10PM
I am really surprised that Ms. Fabrizio is so ignorant of English history. Compared to many of their predecessors, the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are monastery material.
It was probably smart for them to get to know each other thoroughly before hand- the stresses of the Royal celebrity existence have broken many a marriage. And seriously, what's a little living together compared to Henry VIII and his six wives (two beheaded for infidelity) Edward VII and his five mistresses (two foreign princesses among them); George IV, a consummate party animal (among the royal memorabilia on display in the Tower of London is old George's punch bowl. You could swim laps in it). there was Charles II, with a good dozen inamorata to his credit...
Hell, it would save time to list the Royals who didn't have a little something on the side. At least one of the Stuart kings was openly gay, or the next thing to it, and legend has it that Edward II was murdered for his homosexual activities. And he's buried in Westminster Abbey, not ten yards from where the royal wedding took place.
But hey, if you can't get a little forgiveness and understanding in church, where can you?
Dave| 5.4.11 @ 3:30PM
Who's ignorant of English history? Isn't Edward II entombed at Gloucester Cathedral?
Martin Owens| 5.4.11 @ 8:07PM
Oops- my bad. But I still maintain the principle of forgiveness and understanding ought to extend to the latest royal newlyweds, whose hands are cleaner than most him .
Martin Owens| 5.4.11 @ 8:07PM
omit " him"
Dave| 5.5.11 @ 8:14AM
Agreed.
mames| 5.4.11 @ 4:01PM
Yes their depravity knows no bounds. Now if Charles could truly become a tampon between Camilla's legs THAT would be unique. Let us not forget the degree of inbreeding in their lineage; we have that too, in the hills of Kentucky. :)
p offed| 5.4.11 @ 8:25PM
Mames, you do know how to lower the tone to the most vulgar level.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:26PM
As a former Kentucky Community Mental Health Psychiatrist, mames, I must unfortunately confirm your comments. unfortunately most Kentuckians I knew did not rise to the level of the redoubtable KyMouse, who deserves a Kentucky Colonelship for her representation of her state on the Web.
KyMouse| 5.5.11 @ 10:04AM
Thanks, Occam -- high praise indeed. And thanks for your service to our glorious commonwealth.
Actually, I've been a Kentucky Colonel since 1978. It's a fine charitable organization, even though they made a mouse a member.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.4.11 @ 12:12PM
BORING!
Larry| 5.4.11 @ 1:04PM
Ken!
Old man, I'm glad to see you're back on here posting again. How you doing? I heard you were under the weather.
Ever hear from Margie? She's making herself scarce on this blog. Haven't seen anything from her in a while. Though I hear she lives in a trailer, and you see what those tornodos did to trailers all over the South, didn't you? Tossed them around like they were tin cans.
Anyway, I'll pray for her safety. Poor thing.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.4.11 @ 1:45PM
Margie and hubby are doing fine. They are selling boocoos on the iternet.
Mimi| 5.4.11 @ 1:56PM
Ken, honey, do you mean beaucoups?
(Ken's a senior, too. Poor man. Confused like the rest of us.)
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.4.11 @ 9:03PM
Hi Mimi.
Nope. I meant boocoos. That was the word our troops used in Nam..."boocoos". Beaucoups is a French word. One has to look like a puckering queer to pronounce beaucoups properly.
Beauregard| 5.4.11 @ 9:48PM
Wrong.
Beaucoups is pronounced BOW kooz, and rednecks use it to mean "a lot," as in "I've got beaucoups of money, and I'm gonna git me a AK47 and fill your Texas ass full o' lead, Mr. ShitHead."
DG in GA| 5.4.11 @ 12:34PM
You know, I really don't understand why so many columnists have felt the need to weigh in on the subject of William and Kate's wedding, as they simultaneously profess not to care about it at all. I think the fact that you took the time to write about it indicates that on some level you care a great deal. Even if you just write to mock the happy couple. People who genuinely don't care, will IGNORE an event like this.
For example, some writers who profess NOT TO CARE wrote endlessly about how much it cost. Well, the Royal Family and the Middletons paid for everything except security, and the same would have been true if a Bush daughter or Chelsea Clinton had married while Dad was in the White House.
Other can't believe it was broadcast all over the world, and that tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of people watched. OK, so what? A lot of people just really enjoy weddings! I am one of them. Millions of people watch the Super Bowl too. Do you resent that?
Now this writer complains that Kate and WIlls lived together before marriage. Frankly, I can count on one hand the number of couples I know who have NOT lived together prior to marriage. So what? I would think with the very unusual circumstances that come with being part of the Royal Family, Wills may have wanted to be sure that Kate had some clue what she was getting into - a courtesy his mother was not given.
As for snarky comments about Kate's sister, for heaven's sake, I don't remember anyone proposing to HER. Unfortunately we now live in a society where young and foolish people do young and foolish things. 'Twas ever thus, but these days those things tend to be a little more lewd and a lot more public. Again, William and Kate have known each other for YEARS (instead of months, like his parents) and appear to genuinely care for each other. I enjoyed watching the wedding of two people who appear to be in love, who appear to have their heads on their shoulders, and who may just one day rule England. I wish them every happiness.
Dave| 5.4.11 @ 3:16PM
Well said, DG. Thanks!
PolishKnight| 5.4.11 @ 2:00PM
I understand and appreciate the author's confusion about shack-up couples wanting a church marriage. Here's the way the thinking goes: They're living in sin. Fine. Then when they decide they want to stop sinning, they get married. In the states especially, shacking up is on the order of getting a speeding ticket while adultery is fortunately taken more seriously.
Regarding trying the milk: In an era when men are no longer entitled by law to his wife (it's now called marital rape) AND sex outside of marriage is still adultery, it's perfectly reasonable to try the milk when you can't go to any other ice cream shop forever. Since (conservatives approve) of divorce laws that require men to pay alimony and/or child-support and even a loss of his property for getting divorced, it's quite reasonable to ensure that he's guaranteed more than just one wedding "night."
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.4.11 @ 3:05PM
Since over 50% of all marriages end in divorce it would be easier to defend living together as marriage.
mames| 5.4.11 @ 4:11PM
Check your facts, 50% of all marriages do not end in divorce . The stat is thrown off because it does not take into effect the percentage of folks married 3 or more times and the much higher percentage of those who are married for life. Shacking up has a poor track record when it leads to marriage it is 70% more likely to end in divorce. Commitment is the core of a long lasting marriage commitment will enable you to ride out the rough spots which come to everyone.
Seek| 5.4.11 @ 7:02PM
The stats say otherwise. The divorce rate has gone down by about a third since 1981 -- from 5.3 divorces per 1,000 population down to 3.6 divorces per 1,000 population.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:22PM
Seek, what about the marriage rate and percentage?
Seek| 5.5.11 @ 1:07PM
The marriage rate among blacks is lower relative to whites. But this is a racial divide, not a cultural one per se.
home on the range| 5.4.11 @ 4:01PM
My goodness, what a bunch of party poopers you are! I loved the wedding! Only the Brits can pull off such gorgeous pomp and circumstance. And everything went just flawlessly...when was the last time you saw that...other than Sunday night in Pakistan? LOL! Kate's dress was gorgeous, Pippa was stunning, the hats were...well...British, and the whole spectecle showed a lot of class, something the royal family is desperately in need of at the moment. I'm glad Will got to marry the woman he loved...his great Aunt Margaret didn't get to marry the man she loved and look what happened there! Yeah, that family needs some changes and I wish Will and Kate all the best!
mames| 5.4.11 @ 4:14PM
Not being able to see the ugliness of welfare dollars taken from the taxpayers to support this sick family is truly sad.
KS| 5.4.11 @ 4:05PM
I'm surprised that someone who only bothered to watch a few clips of the wedding would write an entire column about it, but I agree with Ms. Fabrizio that the church should not defend "society says" morality, i. e., cohabitation.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight." 1 Corinthians 3:19
mames| 5.4.11 @ 4:15PM
The Anglicans and Episcopals are Christian in name only. "Having the appearance of godliness..."
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:09PM
OK, now it's time for the Shrink to comment on this:
What these two nitwits do has no bearing on what normal people do in terms of any positive outcome. They have resources to overcome problems most people don't have.
In the USA, our non upper middle class and upper class people are no longer marrying. Marriage, for non-royalty, tends to do the following things---1) creates wealth.2) Provides a safer environment for children to grow up in. 3) Reduces children's emotional problems.
We are facing an enemy that is outbreeding us and that has no doubt of the rightness of its cause. Dissent and argument is a great part of the Western tradition: the Fleet leaders bickered almost until the first shots were fired at Lepanto. Themistocles was forced into exile. However, married families are the best way to raise kids. Period.
And marriage sublimates men's energies into more productive things. It did for me. So does raising kids. Without kids, we're lost, because, as Mark Steyn so eloquently put it, "when history comes calling, the first thing it does is go knock, knock, who's there?"
Royalty has an obligation to set an example, as do Presidents. Clinton with his fellatio in the Oval Office, Wills and Kate with co-habitation before marriage have set dreadful examples for the lower class and middle class (not upper middle class and above), who are no longer marrying in this country---or the UK.
That is a problem on many levels. Ken, let the next book you snag be "Life at The Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple. There's stuff there to make a novel from.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:20PM
Let me be clear about two things I noticed I might have muddled above: Upperclass and upper middle class people ARE marrying. Middle class and below ARE NOT.
Also, to clarify, while dissent and argumentation is a way to find truth, and will help us beat fanatics, the same is not true for a plurality of optimal approaches in raising children.
And Ken and others, if you haven't found Ted Dalrymple's stuff, do. I disagree with his secularism, and it is a blind spot of his in explaining decline to some extent, but so many of his observations are spot on. I speak, incidentally, as the former prison psychiatrist of the Alabama Chain Gang and Alabama Death Row, as well as work in New Mexico's prison system. I have also worked in charity/state hospitals in Texas, Minnesota, New Zealand, and California. The reason I mention this will become apparent when you read his stuff---recommend for Margie, Steve A, Cartman, Ken, The Saint, and RCV, who might find his liberalism a bit shaken, as Dalrymple is a physician/author on a level with William Carlos Williams. (As you know, RCV, I don't believe in name calling to win arguments, I believe in name calling for fun. I'm actually very interested in what you think about this book. Available for $5.00 on Kindle. (Full disclosure: I ain't him, and I won't earn a cent off of hawking this book. I would recommend you read it, America Alone, and then the Old Texican's Opus. Full disclosure: I only wish I was the Old Texican. He has lived and lives a fantastic life of service to others.)
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:21PM
Did I forget an end parenthesis at the end of that last post? Damn.
Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 9:37PM
Hey, regarding Sir Elton:
1) He went to play in Israel despite having his life threatened. He has a considerably saner view of the Middle East than, say, Ron and Rand Paul. He is no dhimmi.
2) He adopts kids. That's a good thing. He also supports traditional marriage; he is in a Civil Partnership with Mr. Furnish.
Sorry, Debbie Schlussel likes him, and she's to the right of me.
T.P Gildersleeve| 5.5.11 @ 3:17AM
Hate to be a bummer crashing into the Wedding of the Century, but let us have a microsecond of silence for Madame Nhu, who died at 87 a couple weeks ago. Does anyone know if there is a ritual in the Abbey when one walks around the Tomb of the Unknown British Soldier? Should Chuck and Wills et al have stopped and saluted? I'm curious about that.
beebop| 5.5.11 @ 6:01AM
Your definition of "lewd" and mine are certainly quite a bit different.
If you want to make a point regarding your take on morality, why go to the couple in the UK at all? And. Some of us find your moralizing tiresome to be honest.
S. Ruger| 5.5.11 @ 7:53AM
I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to hear that any "non-connubial canoodling" has ever involved a member of the Royal Family!
Give the tut-tutting, jealously, and cynicism a rest. This is a young couple to whom we should offer our heartfelt best, even though they are blessed and burdened with starring roles in a convoluted, aging, magnificent, silly, vital production known as the British Monarchy.
Long live the Count and Countess of Cambridge!
KS| 5.5.11 @ 3:02PM
Or the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge ...
KyMouse| 5.5.11 @ 10:22AM
As with so many questions these days, the sex-outside-of-marriage question requires asking whether or not God's word, the Bible, is binding upon anyone (and everyone). Should we have sex only with our spouse, or should God stop being so old-fashioned and start thinking the way we do? Should we follow God's word, or should it conform to what we want?
Key verses include Ephesians 5:3,5; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; and Hebrews 12:14-17. So much of this question boils down to a challenge to biblical authority.
As someone said, when God tells us not to do something, it's like guardrails along a mountain highway. We can go over the guardrail if we choose to and don't object to the consequences. The guardrail is there to protect us.
Downunder| 5.6.11 @ 5:03AM
A short puerile commentary of the wedding delving into the rumor and tittle tattle of what might have a smidgen of truth in it, or might not. Always it seems to make a good story of it, writers have to incorporate anything that might have morsel of discourtesy to throw at the royal couple, or to compare modern equivalents of what takes part in our permissive society. Giving a view of certainty that this is indeed how thing are. Wouldn't it be nice if we could at least give the wedding couple the benefit of the doubt. To try to install a shallow Hollywood filmstrip out of the occasion, along with the immoral imaginations of todays scriptwriters is bit over the top.