Last Friday, Prince William and Catherine Middleton married in Westminster Abbey as the world watched. Predictably, first world republican naysayers and third world perpetual whiners about colonial oppression chastised the curious, well wishing billions who showed interest in the delightful affair. From ladies’ gossip and fashion pages to conservative sites like View from the Right and the Thinking Housewife, commentary about the event obviously displayed diverse opinion.
I readily acknowledge the moral rot and cultural decay that has set in Britain since the Second World War, and the House of Windsor has not exempted itself from the slide toward Gomorrah. The Queen has overseen the transition of the United Kingdom from a victorious world empire to a tumultuous Babel that has willingly allowed itself to be colonized by unassimilable hordes that have destroyed peaceful, unified cultures. The indigenous Brits cannot blame the brown invaders alone for the unsettling rise of violent crime, political corruption, dysfunctional family and community life, and the extent of parasitic dependence upon the dole. The self reliant, self sacrificing British of high minded resolve have transformed into a mass of lazy, vulgar, entitled brutes whose aims rise no higher than the selfish gluttony of their lowest appetites. The United Kingdom vividly has shown itself to be an incarnation of the decline of regimes as told in Plato’s Republic.
I moreover admit that the royal family has not only been negligent of safeguarding British society from the harmful tendencies of the post war age but has also contributed to the vice. Three of Queen Elizabeth’s four children have been divorced, and their lives have not escaped scandal. One might argue that such moral failings have always occurred but that the press was once more protective of royal indiscretions than today. Fleet Street has always worked for the devil; so, I am less sure of the transparency explanation. Even if such were true, it simply means that members of the royal family have a greater responsibility to live properly in order to set a good example for the society. The Queen’s children have failed miserably. Their spouses fared even worse, especially Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson whose narcissism and irresponsibility typify the postmodern, “liberated” woman.
Nonetheless, I enjoyed the spectacle of the wedding, and I wish every good thing for the couple. There is hope that this younger generation has awoken from the foolishness of the self indulgent age of their parents. Of course, the prince and Middleton should not have cohabitated before marriage. No one believed that Catherine’s white gown accompanied a virginal state. However, gossip mongers unfriendly to Middleton claimed that she was a virgin before he started dating William, and she has spent the last decade waiting to marry the prince. So, Catherine is not likely to have spent her sexuality at the market. Given contemporary standards, such is remarkably traditional. Moreover, it is clear that William and Catherine know each other well; the decision to wed was not taken lightly. Despite the dismal success statistics of marriages preceded by cohabitation, I hope that this one makes it. For it seems that the pair is truly committed. Lastly, the couple’s behavior and choices allow for us to hope that they will live up to their responsibilities of providing a good example of loving, well ordered family life. The British crown has lost much of its direct political power, but it retains moral leadership if the sovereign is willing and capable of being a good example to the people.
Those of us who are supportive of the British monarchy have legitimate reasons to worry. The sorry state of the British people, the decline of their appreciation for tradition and civilization, their increasing acceptance of leftist, egalitarian nonsense, and their self absorbed commitment to “me society” egoism spell trouble for the crown even if the royal family executes its duties well.
Beyond that, traditionalists understandably fret over the transgressive unforced moves by the royal family itself. I once attended a service at Saint Paul’s Cathedral, and the minister shocked me with hellfire and brimstone rhetoric directed at his country’s leadership. I did not expect such conviction from Anglicans. In response to Charles’ frequent universalist statements in support of a multicultural, multifaith Britain, the preacher reminded the Prince of Wales that, should he ascend the throne, he would not be the “defender of the faiths” (note the “s”) but rather the defender of the Christian Church. In Charles’ defense, let us note that British aristocrats have long admired Mohammedans. The Windsors’ appreciation of them is not something new or an example of leftist Islamo-chic posing. Mohammedan subjects of the Queen around the world, as well as Mohammedans in former lands of the crown, are some of the royal family’s most enthusiastic supporters. For a much smaller percentage of the Dar al-Islam has bought the egalitarian extremism of the Left. Musulmans also tend to be more pious and observant, taking their religion more seriously than most Christians in Britain. It is therefore not surprising that the Windsors would have warm feelings toward them. Furthermore, we cannot blame the Mohammedans for the decline of Christendom. Rather, the decline of Christendom preceded and is a necessary requisite for the Islamization of Europe. Christians and apostates from the faith are the reason for Christianity’s retreat in the sceptered isle, not Pakistanis.
Besides Charles’ frequent warm fuzzies to the Mohammedans, he consistently shows himself to be a traditionalist in matters of culture, music, art, architecture, and language. He maintains an interest in the Orthodox Church and is said to complement his public Anglicanism with private Orthodox devotion. His father Prince Philip was Orthodox until he converted before his marriage to Elizabeth, and Philip and Charles often visit Mount Athos and coordinate efforts to support the monastic peninsula. To his credit, Charles typically refuses to pander to the newly adopted barbarian impulses of his people, which has hurt his public image among the polloi. Of course, his marriage to Diana was a sham, but he otherwise seems sensible and levelheaded. The Charles of British history have been right but nonetheless disastrous for the crown. Charles III may follow the template.
For now, though, let us rejoice in a new marriage and wish Albion the best.