Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

'...love, honour and listen when I feel like it' sounds better to me.

I'm all for feminism involving a diversity of opinions but no-one has ever managed to convince me that women promising to obey their husbands and not the other way round is feminist in any way whatsoever.

though some Christian feminists did try very hard once.... mostly based on the argument that having to be obeyed all the time was an awful responsibility so the wife got the easier ride by just having to do the obeying.

lolol.

But obey doesn't mean "promising to listen to his opinion"

What a load of guff! The church now get to redefine words do they? If "promising to listen to his opinion" is what you wanted to say why didn't you say that?

What a beautiful cage.

No but he promised to worship me and endow me with all his worldly goods - vows the woman doesn't make in the traditional service. I thought promising to listen in exchange for being worshipped seemed to favour the woman rather than the man. But we all interpret feminism in our own way.

So I assume your husband said the same?

Actually as a feminist I do have issues with inequality. But I am also a liberal so I respect it is your choice to make.

I love my friends - that's why I invited them. I just knew some of them would find saying 'obey' problematic so the vicar addressed it in his sermon. Where better to raise eyebrows than at a wedding - hardly anything else is formal to do it enough these days. I chose to use those words due to this meaning - "to listen, take heed". The root of the word is from Latin 'oboedire' meaning 'to listen to'. I liked that when we talked about it and it was explained that I made the vow in the spirit of that definition. I liked people thinking it meant one thing and then realising there are more perspetives than that. I was very happy to promised to listen to my husband and as the vicar said "She is only promising to listen to his opinion, not necessarily to share or follow it". I thought that was entirely appropriate for any healthy relationship. OK with you?

I don't think I will ever understand no matter what anybody writes why one person in a relationship would choose to obey the other.

Even if sometimes (like today) I bloody wish DH was a bit more obedient

I've read it twice and I still don't understand why you chose to declare publicly that you would obey your husband?

I think I did read it properly. I read what you wrote: I also promised to obey - slightly silly because I did take the words seriously - but wanted to raise the eyebrows of feminist mates - always like to provoke a bit

You've added another post now saying something a bit different which is your perogative but I'm not sure I get your point.

I don't think you read my post properly. "I took the vows as a demonstration of my trust in DH's good nature - I know he would never order me to do anything so it will never come up." I was demonstrated my faith in my husband and knew that using that word would raise eyebrows. I didn't do it solely for that reason but quite enjoyed it as a side effect. I did respect my vows and had a long discussion with the vicar about the words 'to obey' and what they meant to me and how some of my friends wouldn't like it. So he brought that into his sermon and explained the whole thinking and what it really means. A wedding is a public declaration - that's why you invite people to witness and celebrate with you. We took that seriously too. No-one could have more respect for their husband or for the words spoken at a wedding than I do but I guess I didn't word the post well!

You chose your wedding vows based on what some of your feminists mates might think? How disrespectful to your husband and people who take their vows seriously.

I meant mine and neither dh nor I gave two hoots what anybody else thought because it wasn't about them. It was about us.

By the way - the exchanging of rings thing isn't always a statement. I received a ring - it was my mum's - but DH didn't have one because if you could get one over his knuckles it would be like a bangle on his finger. I also promised to obey - slightly silly because I did take the words seriously - but wanted to raise the eyebrows of feminist mates - always like to provoke a bit. But I didn't change my name. I took the vows as a demonstration of my trust in DH's good nature - I know he would never order me to do anything so it will never come up.

I would have loved to have been 'given away' by my Dad. I would have been so proud to be escorted by one man I love towards another man I love - that's really all it is. But my Dad died before I even met my husband - they would have loved each other and our wedding would have celebrated that as much as our own love. It's not a charade of possession - who really thinks of it that way these days? I would have found it a privilege and a joy to have had my dad at my side.

Traditionally women took the man's name not just the surname. So they were Mrs. John Smith. To denote possession I suppose. As a child I addressed letters to my aunts as Mrs. .

I thought Princess Di kept her Princess status but lost the right to use HRH. Same as Fergie who got to keep her Duchess of York title??

"two nuns in different stages of life, as far from glamourous as possible with sensible shoes.."

Apparently black Reeboks.

Campion, I'm not saying that Sophie Winkleman should have been referred to as Lady Sophie Windsor, I'm saying that she should have been referred to as Sophie Winkleman. The name that she is well-known under - the name that she kept when she married her husband. Calling her Lady Frederick Windsor is like when they called Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg'.

They don't have to refer to her by the title she has chosen not to use. They didn't refer to Lady Louise Windsor as Princess Louise as she technically is.

And the press used 'Princess Diana' when that wasn't actually her title to use, so it's not like there is a protocol which has to be followed in reporting.

Thank you Sybil!

It's a royal title issue. Sophie Winkleman doesn't have a title in her own right - she's not the daughter of an Earl or similar ( Lady Diana Spencer et al) so it's just a courtesy appendage.

Neither she nor Princess Michael seem too fussed.

Did anyone else notice the poignancy of the shot they kept coming back to of a beautiful Kate next to William and then two nuns in different stages of life, as far from glamourous as possible with sensible shoes, scraped back hair and very little trace of femininity as we ordinarily understand it? Kate was glowing but the nuns had the expressions of blank resignation to their rejection of all the things of the world that kate and W represented visually.
It was like an advert...which life do you choose?Embrace the material or reject it? Look here are the consequences.I did feel sorry for the nuns and wondered how many nuns may regret rejecting the normal world with all its sensual delights, patriarchy, and other weaknesses?

At least Victoria Beckham wasn't suddenly being referred to as Mrs David Beckham. Unlike Sophie Winkleman (I think she kept her maiden name on marriage) being referred to as Lady Frederick Windsor.

Princess Michael's name is Princess Pushy. I thought everyone knew that.

This thread's very entertaining though a bit sketchy on CofE matters.