Marriage is like a formality for me.

"Marriage is like a formality for me." These words, spoken by David Copperfield, invite us to reflect on the profound complexity of marriage—an institution that has shaped the course of human history and personal lives for millennia. At first glance, Copperfield’s statement may appear dismissive or detached, but a deeper reflection reveals an intriguing perspective on the nature of commitment, ritual, and the meaning we attach to this sacred bond. To him, marriage is not imbued with the romanticized idealism that society often promotes. Instead, he sees it as a formal act—a declaration, yes, but perhaps one that doesn’t necessarily encapsulate the depth or the emotion that others associate with it.

The origins of marriage as a formality trace back to the ancient world, where it was less about love and more about duty and alliances. In civilizations such as Rome and Greece, marriage was a social contract—a pact between families, securing inheritance, political influence, and societal stability. Love was often secondary to the practical considerations of preserving bloodlines and power. In these ancient worlds, the union of two individuals was viewed through a pragmatic lens. The idea of a romantic marriage as we understand it today was a concept that evolved much later. This historical view of marriage as a formal arrangement was not a cold or impersonal act, but one that was necessary for the survival and thriving of the society.

Yet, as we move forward through time, the notion of marriage began to shift. During the Middle Ages, the Christian church began to view marriage as a sacred union ordained by God, elevating it from a formality to something of profound spiritual significance. Chivalric ideals, brought forth by knights and romantic poets, idealized marriage as the highest expression of love and devotion. The stories of King Arthur and Guinevere, of Romeo and Juliet, cemented the idea that marriage could be the ultimate expression of romantic passion. Yet, even here, the marriage vows were not always purely based on love, for many unions were arranged to preserve power or consolidate land.

In modern times, as society continues to evolve, marriage has become more about individual fulfillment and emotional connection than about societal duty. Yet, for some, like David Copperfield, marriage remains a formality—an institution that carries with it both societal expectations and personal obligations, but one that may not necessarily hold the deeper emotional weight that others assign to it. This view of marriage could be understood as a recognition that, in the modern world, the formal aspects of the institution—the vows, the ceremony, the legal bond—are just that: formalities. They are rituals designed to bring people together in a structured way, but not necessarily the sum of the love, connection, or meaning that can exist between two people.

Consider, too, the story of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Their marriage, though politically arranged, became a deep and devoted partnership. For Victoria, the formality of marriage transformed into something personal and romantic over time. Yet, her union with Albert was not just a romantic ideal—it was also an essential institution. Their marriage created an example of how a formal bond could evolve into a profound personal connection, demonstrating the flexibility of marriage as both duty and love. Over time, their legacy influenced the world’s understanding of marriage as a sacred bond, one that transcended political need and included the personal realm of affection and commitment.

In David Copperfield’s perspective, we find a critique of the societal pressures that often surround marriage. His view of marriage as a formality invites us to question the rituals and traditions that we take for granted. Do these formalities truly serve the people involved, or are they simply societal constructs? To see marriage as a formality is to step back from the expectations placed on the institution and to recognize that the value of marriage lies not in the ceremony or legal bindings, but in the personal connection and commitment that exist between the individuals involved. Copperfield’s view challenges us to reevaluate the importance of marriage and to ask ourselves: Do we seek marriage for the right reasons, or are we simply conforming to the social rituals and expectations of those around us?

The lesson of David Copperfield’s reflection is that marriage, like any tradition or institution, is shaped by the context in which it exists. It is both a personal choice and a societal construct, and its meaning can vary widely from one person to another. In our own lives, we must seek to understand what marriage means to us, not merely as a formal act but as a commitment that reflects our true values and desires. Let us not be led by the expectations of others, but rather, let us find meaning in the bonds we form—whether in marriage, friendship, or community—seeking the balance that allows us to live authentically and meaningfully.

May we remember that marriage, like all formalities, can evolve. It can be both a ritual and a deep personal connection, a sacred bond that represents the intersection of love, commitment, and duty. But at its core, it is a choice, a choice that should reflect the deepest truths of our hearts. And in this, it is not the formality that defines its worth, but the genuine love and devotion that we bring to it. Let us live with the wisdom to honor what is truly meaningful, both in our relationships and in our choices, and let us move forward with the understanding that every bond we form, whether formal or informal, shapes the world we live in.