Not a member? Sign up now
Kate Middleton's virginity is a non-issue issue
By Libby RumeltApril 8th, 2011, 2:30 pmComments (17)
I have very, very little interest in the upcoming Royal nuptials. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another highly-publicized marriage between two attractive people, except this time around, it's on TV at four o'clock in the morning. I do, however, care about Kate Middleton's virginity, because I thought the royal family did. Turns out, I was wrong. For the first time ever, the palace has declined to make any comment on their preference towards the future Queen's chastity.
Only thirty years ago, Princess Diana's uncle came forward to publicly declare his nineteen-year-old niece a virgin prior to her marriage to Prince Charles. Although there has never been an official law stating that a royal's bride must be a virgin, it certainly takes away any concerns of possible lovers or illegitimate children creeping out of the woodwork. As an American who has no understanding of royal traditions or British prudishness, this sounds unfathomably archaic. Our country also has ambivalent feelings about pre-marital sex, but ours are based more in religious beliefs that have spilled over into the culture at large, rather than a concern about our country's reputation as a whole.
It's pleasing to know Middleton won't be subjected to such bizarre scrutiny, but you don't have to think too hard to know that the jig is already up. Prince William and Middleton have been together on and off for years, and have lived together during those "on" periods. So here's some food for thought: would it be embarrassing or empowering for Middleton to be forced to come forward and admit to not being a virgin at the grand old age of twenty-nine? Discuss.
Commentarium (17 Comments)
I want the palace to come forth and say "after a thorough investigation, we have determined that she is a technical virgin".
"As an American who has no understanding of royal traditions or British prudishness, this sounds unfathomably archaic. Our country also has ambivalent feelings about pre-marital sex, but ours are based more in religious beliefs that have spilled over into the culture at large, rather than a concern about our country's reputation as a whole."
So when Americans have similar feelings about pre-marital sex, it's not archaic because it's only bullshit handed down by religion, but when it's British royals, it's archaic? Riddle me that. The bit about this being related to a concern about the country's reputation seems misguided on your part. I don't think anybody buys this would change anything about the way people around the world feel about the United Kingdom. But the royals are a global brand, and part of their appeal is that old world feel. This, if anything, is actually what passes for modernity in royal business. Like everything else they do, it's stiff, stuffy, and overall completely uninteresting, but exactly how it differs from good old-fashioned religious-based sexual hypocrisy is beyond me.
What about the Prince's virginal status? Shouldn't we be looking into that as well?
If they force us to see the wedding, 'tis only fair that we see the bedding!
Ugh, so boring. Can't we combine article ideas and run "Sex Advice from Possible-Virgin Kate Middleton"?
Like
With questions like "So what is the best way to bag your self a monarch in waiting without using sex?"
This combines Nerve's obsession with virginity or lack thereof, sex advice from people we don't give a shit about, and celebrity gossip. I approve.
Most Brits were creeped out thirty years ago by the uncle's proclamation about Diana. We didn't give a shit whether she was a virgin or not. We were more concerned a pretty young girl was going into what seemed almost like an arranged marriage with a jug-eared, inbred dullard.
If we're talking religious nonsense, then it should be pointed out that the British and Commenwealth monarch is appointed "Fidei Defensor" - defender of the faith - for the whole Anglican church. So there's that. Now google a picture of James Hewitt, then Prince Harry, then have a chuckle to yourself at this whole sack of bullshit.
Yeah well we have Henry VIII the serial wife murderer to thank for that one. Perfect role model for head of a church, right?
Someone in the UK told me that even if Harry were proved by DNA test not to be Charlie-boy's biological offspring, it doesn't make a bit of difference to the royal succession, since Charles and Di were married when she bore him and that's all that legally matters.
Actually the 'defender of the faith' title was granted by the Pope before the king split from rome to form the anglican church, due to the catholic church's inconvenient stance on divorce. He went on to have six wives. He kept the title because, well, he was a jerk.
Actually the 'defender of the faith' title was granted by the Pope before the king split from rome to form the anglican church, due to the catholic church's inconvenient stance on divorce. He went on to have six wives. He kept the title because, well, he was a jerk.
"Our country also has ambivalent feelings about pre-marital sex, but ours are based more in religious beliefs that have spilled over into the culture at large, rather than a concern about our country's reputation as a whole."
couldn't have said it better myself
I cringe whenever you guys cover something happening in the UK because it's always made out to be the Britain of sixty years ago. A similar thing happens when some of the more ignorant British journalists write about America. If you have no interest or knowledge in the wedding or royal traditions - and I don't either - why are you commenting?
And I have to agree with ADD calling bullshit on your comparison of American and British attitudes to pre-marital sex. It comes from exactly the same place. The royals are just the most extreme representation of this, pointless and outdated as they are.
"For the first time ever, the palace has declined to make any comment on their preference towards the future Queen's chastity."
What on earth is this 'first time ever' garbage supposed to mean? It's not the first time the palace has declined to answer a reporter's question — they do that practically every day about something or other. And it's certainly not the first time the palace has left a person's virginity un-commented-upon — indeed, it's a safe bet that, since the invention of the newspaper, the palace has NEVER EVER released a public statement confirming (or denying) somebody's virginity. So if they had to 'no comment' this at all, it's just a sign of the times that some obnoxious reporter felt it was an OK question to ask.
A lot may have changed over the years about attitudes toward sex & virginity; but asking intrusive questions about private matters was rude then and remains rude today.
speaking as an europen; she's NOT a virgin. i don't understand the american hysteri about virginity, who gives a shit how many people you screw and who cares about their sexlife? don't think she planned on marrying a british prince when she was like.. 15? 16? whatever? and i don't think prince william was saving himself either.. it's 2011 for fucks sake.