Down-toning the Royal Wedding Ring

This photo's caption reads "Prince William and Kate
Middleton exchange rings." This is incorrect. It is Prince
William who gives Kate Middleton a ring. He doesn't
receive one in exchange. The controversial Archbishop
of Canterbury presided over the ceremony.

The writers at What's Wrong With the World have a post and discussion on the royal wedding. They dissect the changes ("down-tonings" - scare quotes are Lydia McGrew's) in the vows from the original Anglican Church 1662 marriage service, and how they has been modified for the couple. McGrew comments:

Those are rather strange down-tonings. The concepts appear to be the same, though not exactly. For example, the reference to fornication as "sin" is eliminated, though the general notion seems to re-emerge in the phrase "directed aright." Altogether an odd set of liturgical innovations--almost pointless, except to make things in some very vague sense sound less "harsh."

The dropping of "obey," of course, is substantive.

The couple has of course been involved in "sin" (McGrew's scare quotes) for about a year before the wedding. The modified service is not to sound less "harsh" (again McGrew's quotes) but to modify the service according to the Church of England's re-writing of biblical tenets, and heading ever closer to a new "Christianity" (quotes my own) that is overtaking our modern world, which gives less importance to God's will, and more to our own.

McGrew also writes:

If so, that combined with the other bit of gossip to the effect that W. is giving K. a wedding ring but not vice versa is rather amusing and shows that the young couple is more than a bit clueless about liturgy. The whole asymmetry whereby the man says, "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow" but the woman does not say all this to him, is part and parcel of a distinction between the sexes represented by her promising to obey him but not vice versa. But I suppose one can't expect them to know that.

The exchange of rings (or lack thereof) is not gossip. Perhaps McGrew posted her comments before viewing that part of the ceremony. William gave Kate a ring, but did not receive one from her.

The history behind the ring "asymmetry" is somewhat explained here:

"It's very traditional to have a single ring gift, not a double exchange," said the Rev. Spenser Simrill of St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Minneapolis. "Historically, the woman was the only one who received a ring. Today (a male ring) is the standard, but it can be an elective."

It basically took World War II to kick off the double-ring tradition. According to research by Vicki Howard, author of "Brides Inc." (University of Pennsylvania Press, $19.95), the number of men who incorporated a ring into their wedding vows increased from 15% in the late 1930s to 80% in the late '40s as part of "a new cult of marriage."

The shift "was shaped by changing gender ideologies," said Howard, an associate professor of history at Hartwick College in New York. "It symbolized a new form of domestic masculinity, a feeling of shared bonds and togetherness as part of a household unit. Wearing a band to signal that you're married was a symbol of these changing roles."

It is strange that William, in a seemingly chauvinistic manner (the woman is identified as married and belongs to the man, as is implied by the ring on her finger) opts not to wear the ring, yet allows Kate (surely they discussed this between them) to drop her "obey" in their vows.

I don't think the couple are "clueless" as McGrew opines, but have made a conscious, but muddled, attempt at changing the church liturgy to suit their whims (what else can it be?).

"William struggled to get the ring on Kate's finger" reports the Daily Mail, which might be a slight nudge from higher forces that the couple rethink through the muddle. But, the problem is, who will help them?