Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

I know it's the Daily Mail and therefore designed to provoke outrage, but in this article, I couldn't find any mention of what the men have to do. Do the men have to bow to each other in order of rank? Do men who marry female royals have higher or lesser rank depending on whether their wife is in the room?

The whole thing is incredibly anachronistic, but I want to know if it's also sexist.

I'm glad this thread is here.

I noticed that about Carole Middleton too, why wasn't her name used? I hate the Mrs blokesname surname thing. And am I wrong (might be) but doesn't their money come from her business?

Yes, SGM, was good to see Harry involved in looking after some of the children, and all waving from their coach. Also nice to see Prince Charles lifting up Camilla's granddaughter for a better view.
All signs of progress and a slight move in the feminist direction !
Amazing noblegiraffe that almost nobody has ever heard her called by her own name, Marie ! I saw that Carole Middleton was listed in official photos as Mrs Michael Middleton too. I think it's awful for women to loose their first names. Changing to a new surname or family name is one thing, loosing your first name is just ridiculous !
Women should say enough's enough !

I think the Fergie thing is weird in the context of who else was invited - that William and Kate either didn't know or barely knew. Normally at a wedding the bride and groom know everyone (or are at least related to those that they don't know that well!) so for me it seems strange that a relative (even one by marriage) isn't invited when so many other hangers on are.

But that has always been the nature of Royal Weddings - an exercise in international diplomacy rather than what the bride and groom may want!

I'm confused by the whole Fergie thing. I didn't invite my auntie's ex husband to my wedding, even though both children of the marriage were in attendance. I wouldn't have dreamt of it. Have I done wrong?

Princess Michael of Kent's actual name is Marie. Did you know? Outrageous.

So, what do you think were the more equal and feminist friendly moments of the day ?
I think seeing Kate and Wills waving together from the coach was friendly and more equal, and one of my favourite bits.
Also the friendly, sisterly relationship between Kate and Pippa was good to see - and evident that Pippa was doing a great job organising things, though slightly behind the scenes compared to say the Archbishop with his fancy hat!
The image of Kate walking up an avenue of spring trees followed by her young attendants and sister could be quite pagan and woman friendly

Oohh, they've put it on discussions of the day !
How good is that ?
Thanks Catherine !

slhilly, I'm finding your posts really interesting

And thank you for yours

Thanks for your friendly response Sakura !

jugglingjo
I think any institution that supports the idea that a man in the sky is the creator of life, instead of women and nature, is misogynistic (and very womb-envying to boot)

I am an agnostic and have a great respect for female-friendly pagansim, which focuses on nature and women's unique connection to the universe.

Oh I missed Fou's fail here "what expensive piece of jewelry did she get him?"

Fou in case you hadn't noticed men have specifically designed society so that they reap the rewards of women's labour. Women do all the donkey work in the bottom rungs of society, including childbearing, for free or a pittance, and men award themselves large economic sums for paper shuffling at the top end. They even expect women to shell out their hard earned cash to support these men, such as when taxpayers had to pay for the bonuses of those incompetent bankers.

Sometimes men make concessions to women by offering to buy them with rings, and other treasures (as if the wealth men own wasn't originally stolen from women in the first place)

Thank goodness this thread exists! Am slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned primogeniture in their analysis....for me, this is the most explicit part of what makes this royal wedding anti-women. Things such as the choir, the giving away of the bride (boak) etc are in other weddings, but primogeniture only really survives in the royal wedding.

For me, the one tiny piece of hope to cling on to is that they took a decade to getting round to getting married, and lived together, and are clearly no sort of arranged marriage. For the royals, that is a significant difference from the past. It also led to a classically bonkers letter to the Guardian from someone complaining about them living together "shamelessly" etc. I do quite like the idea that the sexual (im)morality of the state religion - lifelong monogamy with no divorce, virginity at marriage - is being made a mockery of by both its next apparent leader, Charles, and the one after that, William.

BTW, I think that this wedding is one where feminist analysis becomes more powerful by being linked to other analyses looking at other types of abuse of power that were on show, because royalty epitomises all of these abuses in one go. A small example: the invitation of lots of "monarchs" who have been kicked out of their own countries, plus a sprinkling of modern despots still in power who have blood on their hands.

Thanks Catherine

• I like your home page tag line

"Catherine makes honest man of William"

A link to here as well would be great !

Oh thank god I've found you all here, you've made me feel like there is still sanity and ration in the world for the first time in about a week.

Fou ('what expensive piece of jewelry did she get him?') the traditional practice of engagement is again a system that makes women powerless - he gets to make the decision about when they get married, in return she gets some jewelry. Choice over major life decisions, or jewelry? hmmmm?

Thanks Humperdink, I've just reported my own post to HQ, with a brief explanation. Have been wondering for a while how to bring any comments to MNHQ attention.
So thanks for the tip. Though I may be addicted to "report" now, and give them loads of hassle

Also, the wearing of wedding rings by men is v unusual in that class: it's seen as v. v. m/c. True blue bloods wear family rings for their pinkies, usually eith family crests on them.

MNHQ -

I see there's no link to this thread from the home page for people interested in talking over everything about the Royal Wedding

But this is the best thread by miles !

(Link only takes you to the dozens of options under "Royal Family" section.)

Please remedy at once !

< stamps foot in almost regal tantrum >