Skip to content

Me for the Claremont Review of Books: Apres Queen Elizabeth, a deluge of just awful royal people

Sussex Royals

Photo: John Stillwell–WPA Pool/Getty

From my latest for the Claremont Review of Books:

By the time we get to 32-year-old Prince Charles’s disastrous 1981 marriage to 19-year-old Lady Diana Spencer—and the similar marital catastrophes befalling his sister, Princess Anne, and brother, Prince Andrew—I found myself yearning for the return of some other British royalty besides the suffocating inbred Germans of the Battenberg-Mountbatten-Windsor clan. The Stuarts, Tudors, Plantagenets, Harold Godwinson—anyone. Charles, whose tastes ran to the arts, was raised by his father in the same militaristic, “penitentiary-like regime” (Irving’s words) that Dickie Mountbatten had imposed on a young Philip. The result was endemic discontent and dilletantish dabbling in architecture and philanthropy. Worse for his marriage, Charles pined for his early love and sometime adulterous companion, Camilla Parker-Bowles, whom he married after Diana’s death in 1997.

As for Diana, Irving succeeds, perhaps inadvertently, in making her singularly unattractive, despite her beauty. After things soured with Charles, Diana used the media to work out her spite against her in-laws (she wasn’t horsey like the rest of them, so she never fit in). She gave off-the-record interviews—duly denied when Elizabeth questioned her—that enabled journalists to paint her as the victim of a loveless marriage and a family of tormentors. A series of affairs began as early as 1985, starting with palace bodyguards married and unmarried and moving on to others married and unmarried, especially after her divorce from Charles in 1996. It mattered little to the public. The photogenic Diana held the hands of AIDS victims and walked across an Angolan minefield in an afterglow of media adoration. With Tony Blair’s ascension as prime minister a few months before her death, she became the darling of New Labour. The royals, especially Charles, were hated. When Diana died in the car crash that also took her latest fling, 42-year-old playboy Dodi Al Fayed, Elizabeth failed to fly the Union Jack at half-staff over Buckingham Palace. In fact it was not protocol for the royal family ever to fly the Union Jack, but the tabloids still screamed, “WHERE IS OUR QUEEN?”

Irving wastes little sympathy on either Elizabeth or the monarchy itself in all of this. Favorite words of his are “ossified” and “archaic”—references to the institution, its “rigid” (another pet word) mores, its arcane rules of nomenclature, its public suppression of private emotions. He faults Elizabeth for “indifference” in her handling of revelations of Prince Andrew’s priapic frolics on Jeffrey Epstein’s island getaway—although in fact the queen all but drummed Andrew out of the family. She also read the riot act to her 36-year-old grandson Prince Harry and his American actress-wife, Meghan Markle, who had wanted to continue calling themselves “royal” as a branding strategy, without performing any royal duties. Irving believes the British monarchy cannot survive because it can neither bring itself up to date nor withstand the scrutiny that the modern press inflicts upon those around the throne….

The real reason for the dim future Irving predicts for Elizabeth’s offspring is something he doesn’t see. Monarchies depend upon a moral consensus as to their legitimacy. In The King’s Two Bodies (1957), historian Ernst Kantorowicz postulated that a medieval monarch wasn’t just a man sitting on a throne but the body politic itself—a living representation of the society he governed. The king’s corporeal body might age and die, but his body politic lives forever in his successors. A monarchy thus has a sacral function, and the British monarchy has since the 7th century been a specifically Christian institution. (Irving, pointedly uninterested in religious matters, never discusses Elizabeth’s own faith, or the fact that she may be the last actual Christian believer in the entire royal family.) It is not surprising that one of the features of every British coronation for the past 300 years has been the singing of Handel’s “Zadok the Priest,” an English translation of the medieval Latin liturgical antiphon for a king’s anointing. This belief in the monarchy’s sacral nature survived even the monarchy’s transition from the assertion of the divine and absolute right of kings under the Tudors and Stuarts to Britain’s current “constitutional” arrangement, in which Parliament, not the king, is the effective sovereign, and royal assent to Parliament’s acts a mere formality. The last British monarch to withhold royal assent was Queen Anne in 1708. Once belief that the monarchy is above any other human office is lost—as is likely in Britain’s current thoroughly secularized and morally polarized society—kings, queens, princes, and princesses are indeed no more than top-level celebrities indulging in pretty pageants, expensive clothes, exotic travel, and occasional erotic foibles.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for the Epoch Times: “Math equity”–If Johnny can’t learn quadratic equations, then nobody’s gonna learn quadratic equations

Steve Kelley's Editorial Cartoons - Math Comics And Cartoons | The  Cartoonist Group

From my latest for the Epoch Times:

It’s a problem exacerbated by the now-nearly universal expectation that every young person go to college and thus must receive a college-prep education in high school. Before the 1960s that expectation didn’t exist. Only a minority of students, the college-bound minority, took algebra, the gateway course for higher math. The majority took “business math” or “general math,” shoring up basic calculation skills that would train them for jobs right out of high school. Now, algebra, sometimes two years’ worth, is mandatory for high-school graduation in nearly every state in America. And as any English major who struggled with quadratic equations as a teenager can tell you, it doesn’t come easy to a lot of people, even very bright people who are clearly gifted in other areas. And it comes least easy of all to students who have never really learned basic arithmetic in grade school, whether because of their socially dysfunctional backgrounds or because their “Common Core” teachers had them filling in boxes with numbers instead of memorizing the multiplication tables.

Educators have devised numerous strategies for trying to wrest equal math outcomes out of young people of widely varying math abilities and preparation. One of the most recent has been “algebra for all”: putting all students, at least nominally, on the same calculus track that gifted students currently enjoy. In 2016 New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a plan for “excellence and equity” that would have all public-school students in New York taking algebra in the eighth grade by the year 2022.  Predictably, the result of such ambitious efforts in many school districts has been watered-down algebra: stretching out a year’s worth of the subject over two years or more, allowing students to rely on graphing calculators instead of solving word problems, and so forth. But high-school graduation and college-entrance rates haven’t budged, especially for the black and Latino youngsters who are often the least prepared. The National Assessment for Educational Progress reported that in 2019 some 40 percent of America’s 12th-graders scored below “basic” level on its standardized math test.

So now, still in its quest for math equity, the education establishment seems ready to swap this “no child left behind” strategy for an “every child left behind” strategy: lowered standards for all students. If such plans are implemented, the current exodus from public schools by those who can afford it, whether white, Asian, black, or Latino, is bound to accelerate. The worst effect, however, will be the long-term effect on education itself. You might not “need” algebra or its next-step offshoot, calculus, to study Shakespeare or criminal justice, but a grasp of higher math, the sophisticated manipulation of abstract symbols, is essential for STEM training and for such related fields as economics and statistics. Rather than dumbing down public-school math in the name of social justice, educators would better serve young people by recognizing that mathematical talent, like artistic talent and musical talent, just isn’t equally distributed. Nor is young people’s ability or desire to spend four years in college grappling with intellectual material when they might lead happier, more productive lives mastering a trade. The education establishment would better serve them if it focused on grounding them in basic math skills that they can actually learn and use–while also encouraging their peers who are genuinely talented in math to soar. 

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

I want Dr. Aruna Khilanani to be MY psychiatrist: “White people make my blood boil” “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way”

Dr. Aruna Khilanani gave a public lecture on April 6 at the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center, in which she revealed she had cut all her White friends out of her life and even had "fantasies" about murdering random White people. (Screenshot taken June 4, 2021 via TikTok/@arunakhilanani)
Ima

Image: Washington Times (from Tik Tok @arunakhilanani)

Me:

Doctor, I’ve been feeling a lot of anxiety recently. I can’t sleep–and then in the morning, I don’t feel like getting out of bed. So I think I need to talk to someone like you, someone who Yale Medical School says is a “forensic psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.” So I know you’ll be able to give me the help I need.

Dr. Aruna Khilanani, M.D., M.A., featured speaker at the Yale Medical School:

White people make my blood boil.

Me:

You know, I think I’ve got an eating disorder as well. Sometimes I’ll sit down and eat a whole chocolate cake. I think at the time that it’s making me feel better, but afterwards I hate myself.

Dr. Aruna Khilanani, M.D., M.A., featured speaker at the Yale Medical School:

I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f[—]ing favor.

Me:

And then I’ll just force myself not to eat anything at all for three days or so–but I can’t concentrate on my job, and my boss gets on my case about not turning in my reports on time.

Dr. Aruna Khilanani, M.D., M.A., featured speaker at the Yale Medical School:

White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time.

Me:

And I can’t seem to keep a relationship going. The last one I had–he told me that all I did was complain about everything and he couldn’t take it any longer.

Dr. Aruna Khilanani, M.D., M.A., featured speaker at the Yale Medical School:

We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall.

Me:

I don’t know what to do. I feel that I’m trapped in a hopeless mire that I can’t get out of, that I’m screaming and no one is listening. I know you can help–is there something you can say to me that will make me feel better about myself?

Dr. Aruna Khilanani, M.D., M.A., featured speaker at the Yale Medical School:

We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Prospective employer to Princeton grad: “So you majored in classics–how’s your Latin?” Grad: “It’s Greek to me” Employer: “So what DID you learn?” Grad: “That the Iliad is racist”

Argonauts - Wikiwand
Image: Wikipedia

From the Princeton Alumni Weekly:

The Princeton faculty approved curriculum changes in the departments of politics, religion, and classics in April. Politics added a track in race and identity, while religion and classics increased flexibility for concentrators, including eliminating the requirement for classics majors to take Greek or Latin….

In classics, two major changes were made. The “classics” track, which required an intermediate proficiency in Greek or Latin to enter the concentration, was eliminated, as was the requirement for students to take Greek or Latin. Students still are encouraged to take either language if it is relevant to their interests in the department. The breadth of offerings remains the same, said Josh Billings, director of undergraduate studies and professor of classics. The changes ultimately give students more opportunities to major in classics. 

The discussions about these changes predate [Princeton president Christopher L.] Eisgruber’s call to address systemic racism at the University, Billings said, but were given new urgency by this and the events around race that occurred last summer. “We think that having new perspectives in the field will make the field better,” he said. “Having people who come in who might not have studied classics in high school and might not have had a previous exposure to Greek and Latin, we think that having those students in the department will make it a more vibrant intellectual community.”

Nothing says “vibrant intellectual community” like telling people you’re a classics major at Princeton when you don’t know a single word of Greek or Latin.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Happy Memorial Day from Kamala Harris: As you “enjoy the long weekend,” don’t forget your “rolled-up solar panel”

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the graduation and commissioning ceremony at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., Friday, May 28, 2021. Harris is the first woman to give the graduation speech at the Naval Academy.
Photo: New York Post

Who said America’s favorite veep doesn’t care about our military? Today is the Monday when we remember those who fell in service of our country–and with May 31 upon us, Kamala Harris has been making it clear for days the high regard with which she holds our fighting men and women.

May 28:

Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday told graduating Naval Academy midshipmen that they may soon be able to pack a “rolled-up solar panel” instead of heavy batteries — an ahead-of-its-time substitute that, at the present moment, would not work so well at crucial moments for the top seamen and Marines.

“Just ask any Marine today: Would she rather carry 20 pounds of batteries or a rolled-up solar panel?” Harris told the Naval Academy’s 2021 class of 778 men and 306 women at their graduation ceremony in Annapolis, Md.

“And I am positive, she will tell you a solar panel. And so would he!” Harris said.

The vice president laughed as she made the last remark….

“There is climate change, which is a very real threat to our national security,” Harris said, adding a dominant Biden administration policy focus into the speech, but omitting the top threat of China from her list.

“And I look at you and I know you are among the experts who will navigate and mitigate this threat. You are ocean engineers who will help you navigate ships through thinning ice. You are mechanical engineers who will help reinforce sinking bases. You are electrical engineers who will soon help convert solar and wind energy into power, convert solar and wind energy into combat power.”

May 29:

“Enjoy the long weekend.”

May 30:

Vice President Kamala Harris paid tribute to fallen service members on Sunday after taking heat for a Memorial Day weekend message that neglected to mention veterans.

“Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country. As we prepare to honor them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice,” Harris wrote on Twitter on Sunday.

On Saturday, Harris shared a photo of herself smiling and wrote, “Enjoy the long weekend.”

Social media users condemned Harris’ lack of tact reminding the vice president of the sacrifices the “long weekend” is meant to honor.

See? Kamala Harris really, really does venerate the men and women who serve our country. And if you don’t believe her, you know where you can stuff that rolled-up solar panel.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Nancy Pelosi, cat person: Pets brand-new kitty, Gianna, in Capitol Hill photo-op

5) Floyd family meets with House Speaker Pelosi ahead of White House visit
Image: CNN

Leave it to Nancy Pelosi! The Democratic House Speaker picked the introduction of some bill or other to show off–and pet–the latest addition to the Pelosi household: a cute little kitty-cat named Gianna.

It’s all here on video on Twitter.

If you didn’t know Nancy was a cat person, you do now. Watch Nancy expertly stroking the back of little Gianna’s neck, in exactly the place where kitties love to be stroked.

That Nancy, taking center stage as always!

And if Gianna looks…a little uncertain about the whole thing, remember that it takes pets a while to get used to their new pet-mommies.

Soon enough, I predict, Gianna will be lapping ice cream from a saucer in Nancy’s kitchen.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for Epoch Times: The anti-homeschoolers are back, this time making it clear that their real problem is Christian parents

image
Photo: Steemit

From my latest for the Epoch Times:

[N]ow the homeschooling opponents are back, with a new, more specific focus: Christian homeschooling. The impetus was the Jan. 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol by disgruntled Trump supporters. It quickly became identified in the media with “white nationalism” and then with “white Christian nationalism,” on the premise that white evangelical Christians were an important voting bloc for Donald Trump in the 2020 election, and many had attended a huge Trump rally on the National Mall that day. From there it was a quick jump to evangelical homeschools. On Jan. 15 the Huffington Post ran a scathing critique of Abeka Publishing and the Bob Jones University Press, which publish textbooks and other materials used by many homeschooling evangelical parents: “Language used in the books overlaps with the rhetoric of Christian nationalism, often with overtones of nativism, militarism and racism.”  Days later, Chrissy Stroop, a writer for the progressive website Religion Dispatches, chimed in: “It would be remiss of us to approach the ‘where were they radicalized’ question without addressing how the Christian schooling and homeschooling movement, along with many white churches and other evangelical, LDS, and ‘trad’ Catholic institutions, fostered the subcultures” presumably responsible for the Capitol break-in.

 A March 2 article in Ms. Magazine focused on “extremist, white supremacist” homeschooling curricula as “the product of a decades-long crusade to deregulate home- and private-school education, the fruits of which are visible in such phenomena as QAnon, COVID denialism, the Capitol riots…” On April 22, numerous media outlets, including the Washington Post, ran an article from the Religion News Service by progressive pastor Doug Pagitt declaring that “homeschooling in conservative evangelical communities is a key channel for ideas to feed into Christian nationalism” “The conservative evangelical education system has become a pipeline of extremism,” Pagitt wrote. Earlier, on March 30, Philip Gorski, a sociology professor at Yale who studies American religious trends, had tweeted: “Christian homeschooling was -and is – often – if not always – a major vector of White Christian Nationalism.” (Gorski has since made his Twitter account private.)…

Up until very recently however, homeschooling opponents kept their attacks reasonably subtle. That is, they didn’t come out and say directly that what they didn’t like about Christian homeschooling was the Christian part. Then, the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol gave them an excuse to do exactly that, usually without being able to back up their attacks with evidence. Yale professor Philip Gorski, for example, admitted in a subsequent tweet that he had no idea how “big” the claimed “overlap between Christian Nationalists and Christian homeschoolers” actually might be. It helps the critics’ cause, of course, that they and the media have redefined “nationalism” to mean mere patriotism or pride in America’s history and civilization and “Christian nation” to mean a theocracy instead of a country where 65 percent of the inhabitants of every ethnicity define themselves as Christians and hold some formulation of Christian ideals. Hence the trepidation over homeschooling textbooks from religious publishers that teach civic virtue, assert that God created the world as the Book of Genesis says, and take a dim view of such progressive shibboleths as feminism, transgender activism, the “1619 Project,” and climate alarmism.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

What a difference three days of ridicule can make–NARAL, May 6, 2021: “When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive” NARAL, May 9, 2021: “Happy Mother’s Day!”

A law would have closed the sole abortion clinic in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, by requiring its doctors to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals.
Photo: Rogelio V. Solis/Associated Press

NARAL Pro-Choice America is America’s most prominent abortion-access lobbying group. As Wikipedia says:

It sponsors lawsuits against governments and hospitals,[12][13] donates money to politicians supportive of abortion rights through its political action committee, and organizes its members to contact members of Congress and urge them to support NARAL’s positions.

And abortion is cool, which means NARAL has got to be even cooler.

So when Rep Cori Bush, D-Missouri, tweeted on May 6, three days before Mother’s Day:

Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don’t believe our pain.

“Birthing people,” yeah, that’s the ticket.

So within minutes NARAL jumped onto the “birthing people” bandwagon:

When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple.

We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.

Because, you know, trans men have abortions, too.

But then, oops!

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted: “‘Birthing people’—you mean women or moms? The left is so woke they’re stripping from women the one thing that only we can do. Leave it to libs to botch highlighting an important issue ppl in both parties. Can agree on by catering to the fringes.”

Actress Rose McGowan tweeted: “Birthing People? I’m empathetic to your painful & unfairly traumatic experience @CoriBush but why are you smearing bio-women to virtue signal to trans women? Why can’t we rise together? Your language is creepy. You are gaslighting. What you are doing is dangerous. #DemCult“….

In the hours leading up to Mother’s Day, the debate continued on Twitter, with some users calling the holiday “Birthing People’s Day” or “Birthing Person’s Day” and others condemning the phrases….

“Tomorrow’s the last Mother’s Day. From then on its Birthing-people Day,” wrote @tre_goated….

“I find it interesting that people who embrace the term ‘Happy Birthing Day’ or ‘Happy Birth Person’s Day’ instead of Happy Mother’s Day because it feels more ‘inclusive’ to them are excluding ALL adoptive mothers who didn’t give birth to their children,” wrote @triplejaymom.

So, by May 9, for NARAL, it was:

Happy Mother’s Day! We have to do better for our moms. …

Ummm.

And I’m not even getting into that oxymoron “moms” on an abortion-pomotion site.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for Law & Liberty: Joan Didion is retired from writing, but her publishers haven’t retired from reprinting her decades-old articles to coax dollars from her adoring fans

Joan Didion with her Corvette, 1971.
Photo: Julian Wasser, 1971 (New York Times)

From my latest for Law & Liberty:

Six of the twelve essays in Let Me Tell You What I Mean are reprints of columns that Didion, alternating with [her late husband, John Gregory] Dunne, wrote for The Saturday Evening Post for several years until the magazine’s demise in 1969. All six date from the same year, 1968, and because the Didion/Dunne columns had a word limit of about 1,200 words, they are very short essays indeed, and it is one of the marvels of a book with 5 by 8-inch pages that a 1,200-word essay can stretch out to fill seven of those pages. One of the Saturday Evening Post offerings, “Pretty Nancy,” in which Didion watches Nancy Reagan, the wife of the governor of California and not yet the wife of the president of the United States, fake the picking of rhododendron blossoms from her Sacramento garden for a television shoot, also appeared as a reprint in shortened form in The White Album, so here it is, in a sense, a reprint of a reprint. Another double reprint in Let Me Tell You What I Mean is “Why I Write,” which appeared first as an article in the New York Times Magazine in 1976, then as an entry in an anthology titled The Writer on Her Work in 1980 before it landed here. A third essay, “On Being Unchosen by the College of One’s Choice,” dating from that year of magical Saturday Evening Post reprint thinking, 1968, about the rejection letter she had received from Stanford as a high-school senior that obliged her to attend the University of California-Berkeley instead, has been posted on the now-defunct website College Admission since at least 2013….

And that leads to the other problem: Joan Didion, who is now 86, retired from writing after Blue Nights, that is, ten years ago. As the Atlantic writer Caitlin Flanagan pointed out in a  review of that book that is probably the most perceptive critique of Didion’s writerly strengths and weaknesses to date, Didion was at heart, and is remembered best as, a young woman, with a young woman’s fresh, often introspective take on the scene around her: the hippies of Haight-Ashbury, the freeways of Los Angeles, the compassless inner lives of the prosperous in the sun-burnished, not yet-overpopulated California of the 1960s and 1970s. Her best work, the work that made her an iconic figure, was her work—her magazine pieces—during that period: Slouching Towards Bethlehem and The White Album. Let Me Tell You What I Mean pays homage to that sparkling time, and to readers’ nostalgia for it, with a dustcover photo of a 30-ish Didion wearing a modish shift-dress, lit cigarette in hand, looking pensive but mostly straight at the camera to command its attention. Her later work, with a few exceptions, deteriorated: the pieties about “Salvador” and elsewhere that the progressive New York Review of Books readership wanted to see in print, and, most recently, the memoirs in which introspection seemed to have crumbled into tiresome self-absorption and style into annoying tics. But the market for books by Joan Didion remains as hungry as ever, and thus the current flow of reprints from the past, of which the 2019 Library of America volume is Exhibit A. And by now, in Let Me Tell You What I Mean, we can hear the distinct sound of the scraping of the bottom of the Didion barrel. Hilton Als, in his rambling forward that is longer than any of the book’s contributions by Didion, strains to find something fresh to say about his subject (“Didion, a carver of words in the granite of the specific”), but mostly fills his allotted pages by summarizing and quoting large chunks from the contents and other, better-known Didion works.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser’s tips for a fun wedding despite her dance ban: 1) Think about how safe you’ll feel 2) Think about how great it is that we’re letting you get married at all

Bride dancing
Photo: Melissa Marshall/Brides

From the Hill:

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) on Wednesday defended her decision to restrict dancing from wedding receptions, underscoring the city’s progress to mitigate the pandemic thus far.  

Bowser announced on April 26 that weddings are now allowed in a limited capacity in Washington, but dancing would still be a high risk activity amid the pandemic….

D.C. weddings are permitted at 25 percent capacity in a room or less than 250 people. However, standing or dancing receptions are not allowed.

According to a report from the DCist, the mayor’s newest restriction on dancing has sent wedding planners scrambling as couples have already booked bands to play at venues with a dance floor. 

What, removing the whole point of crashing a wedding?

But for those future brides and grooms among you getting the glums over the idea of your guests’ sitting for hours in a mostly empty ballroom waiting for someone to haul out the cake, cheer up! Mayor Bowser has some tips for making the wedding a fun occasion nonetheless:

During an interview with CNN, Bowser was asked why dancing was not permitted at wedding events. 

“Well, I think there’s a lot of good to a wedding like people starting off their lives together and doing it in a safe way and not doing it in a way that puts themselves or their guests in danger,” Bowser replied. 

“An alternate headline may be, ‘Now you can host a wedding in Washington, D.C.,’” Bowser added.

Yes, just think about how safe you all will feel–and how grateful you will be that Mayor Bowser is letting you get married at all.

Posted by Charlotte Allen