Given the amount of attention given to the impending nuptials, it’s easy to understand why some people are a little bit over it all. I’m personally quite ambivalent about the whole thing. There is one thing about the coverage that is getting on my nerves.
“Last week, she [Kate Middleton] celebrated her final days as a single girl with a hen do that was more of a hen don’t: just her, her little sister, and a couple of mates at the home of a close friend."These are just a few examples. If you search google you can find many more.
“The 28-year-old, who marries long-term girlfriend Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey on April 29, reportedly marked the end of his life as a single man with a low-key party at a rural retreat at the weekend.”
I’m quite confused. I was under the impression that both Kate Middleton and Prince William were ‘off the market’ as it were, years ago. I certainly wouldn’t describe two people who have been in a long term relationship as ‘single’. How utterly bizarre.
This is not just one-off language that is being used in relation to the Royal Wedding, it’s the way we tend to talk the nuptials of ordinary people.
Implicit in this type of language is that being married is the only legitimate form of a committed relationship. What this language is really implying is that, despite being in a committed relationship, you’re still not quite there. It’s not quite a real and bonafide relationship unless you put a ring on it.
This attitude’s not just offensive to couples who choose not to get married, but also to gay couples who so far do not have the ability to get married in New Zealand.
Given the diversity of people in general, it’s a little absurd to think we’d all have the same preference for the way in which we choose (or not choose) to label our relationships with one another.