A Very Brief History of Royal Weddings

I can’t say that we’ll be watching the royal wedding. But we should at least put a thin veneer of intelligence on top of the shallow spectacle. That’s our job. In two very quick minutes, Emory historian Patrick Allitt sketches out the history of royal weddings, and tells you why this “Royal Willding” stands out…

by | Permalink | Comments (8) |

Support Open Culture

We’re hoping to rely on our loyal readers rather than erratic ads. To support Open Culture’s educational mission, please consider making a donation. We accept PayPal, Venmo (@openculture), Patreon and Crypto! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (8)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Jon T says:

    Why would you say, or think, a wedding is a shallow spectacle”?

  • Jon T says:

    Why would you say, or think, a wedding is a shallow spectacle”?

    • Paul says:

      No-one is saying weddings are shallow spectacles. They are often wonderful displays of love and devotion between two people and can be very moving, even if you don’t believe in the institution. However a royal wedding is nothing of the sort. It’s an attempt to continue the royal bloodline, to pump more life into a vile and decaying system of privilge and power through birthright. As my friend rightly put it – “Dear citizen. We’re having a wedding. You’re paying for it but you’re not invited. Now run along and have a street party in our honour. There’s a good peasant. From Will and Kate.”

      It’s not just shallow, it’s manifestly wrong that such attention and such vast amounts of money should be lavished on two people who seem to have done nothing to deserve it beyond one of them being born to someone who died in a car crash.

      • Blake says:

        Your opinions seem to be out of sync with the majority of those of us who live under the system you think you are describing.

        A strong majority (63%) of Britains of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. Sixty-seven percent – including fifty-seven percent of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Lucky is the public institution of any country that can boast of such support.

        The fact that Queen Elizabeth II has a sixty-one percent favourable rating among Americans and that seventy-one percent of Americans say the Royal family “is a good thing” for the British people seems to support the opinion of sixty percent of the British public that the monarchy is something that improves Britain’s image around the world.

        Oh, and by the way, sixty-six percent of the UK public (and seventy-five percent of the US) still have a favourable opinion of the woman who died in that car crash nearly fourteen years ago.

  • Steve40004 says:

    I think it is very meaningful to the people of Britain and very ungenerous of us to criticize their institutions. It brought people together, and we have no right to make fun of it. Their traditions are a thousand years old, how old are ours? Keep snark out of this.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.