Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

I was thinking this morning that what I did like at the wedding was that it seemed to do away with all the tiresome + one nonsense that happens at most weddings. Like a single person is going to be the bad fairy and sprinkle doom dust over the happy couple so they must come along with a 'partner'

That's not to say that Kate's not the ultimate disposable commodity for the Royal family.

Sakura it's not a feminist point I know, but I don't see how they could remove Kate and replace her with someone more fertile within the necessary timeframe without damaging the relationship Kate and Wills have nurtured with the public on the monarchy's behalf. Surely we'd be looking at Harry's children to succeed William.

i don't think any couple who are intending to have children would sail through a forced hysterectomy, so in terms of their personal relationship, i'm sure it would be enormously difficult. he's actually a fairly decent chap by all accounts tho, so unless their own relationship broke down irrevocably as a result due to grief etc, i don't think he would allow The Firm to intervene in a personal matter. i'm reasonably confident that the succession rules will be amended prior to the pg press conference. the wheels are turning, we just haven't drummed up enough enthusiasm for an actual revolution.

i always defend my marriage btw, on a feminist forum and elsewhere - it's just the institution itself that could do with a little evolution. it'll come.

i'm looking for military spouses to interview wrt feminism atm - do you think she'll bite?

don't get your point meditriana, are you defending marriage?
ON a feminist forum? Or defending religion?

You seriously think that if by some terrible stroke of bad luck, Kate had to have a hysterectomy this year, Kate and WIlls would live happily ever after?

Youu're entitled to bring the mainstream point of view here, of course, it's just that it's boring. Aren't there loads of other threads out there where people are saying marriage is equal and brilliant and blah blah

And another thought - the pageantry was much the same for HMQ and Princess Anne. Is there a difference based on sex? Or is it more that we tend to look back only as far as Diana and Charles, and the level of ostentation for them was an aberration - possibly the spirit of the time?

Oh, I think it does! Just that the things listed weren't unique.

Not having the full guest list, it's impossible to tell the balance between rich and ordinary, or male v female as principal guest (the nomenclature being a reflection if HMQ's norm, not which half of a couple was the principle invitee). Having European monarchy attend royal events is standard. But which despots were there?

But I do like your second point, about the role and relevance of pageantry. It doesn't seem to have been discussed much (if at all). Again, it feeds back to the post-Diana narrative - Westminster Abbey (the traditional Royal venue)' not St Pauls: therefore a shorter carriage ride (with fewer carriages), but still a need to parade through the centre of the capital, essentially bringing it to a halt. There are the same issues of display, but compared to the Charles-Diana wedding it's scaled back. Do you think that's a minor insignificant variation, or an indication of William's attitude? (I say William's, not the couple's, because if the areas if doubt I mentioned in my last post). Will it ever, as outsiders, be possible to divine whether Catherine did play a full role? If not, would you see the working hypothesis being that she did, or she didn't (and why?)

meditrina, what on earth do you mean by all this stuff where you seem to be arguing that a royal wedding does not have unique features?

Royal weddings modify the line of succession to the throne, and do so in a patriarchal way. other weddings don't.

On some of your specifics:

1. I think it's safe to say that the particular collection of rich and powerful men, with a smattering of women, who attended this wedding, have not been assembled for any other wedding. I don't think we need the guest list in full to know that, unless you're aware of non-royal weddings attending by large numbers of deposed monarchs, current despots and half the Tory cabinet.
2. The order of service may have been standard CofE. The presence of various archbishops, a choir, the use of Westminster Abbey, trumpeters, a huge number of news crews and a million people on the street did make the service itself just a tad different from a non-royal wedding, at least to me.

SGM: can I quote from your post of Tue 03-May-11 11:30:19

"meditrina - I don't think the uniquely royal aspect has been overlooked: we've discussed their guest list; naming of guests; required clothing and service. All of those were unique to the RW."

The last sentence quoted is why I thought thought you meant exactly that.

Sybil: interesting point. It's not really possible to tell, is it? Even if it is a more sympathetic (and media savvy) approach, there's still a willingness to believe that she wasn't an equal partner in making the arrangements (and if you look at the "Bully for Katy" thread, a view held by some that Waity Katy became Lazy Katy, also assuming that she did little/nothing in planning her own wedding). It suggests the dominant force (for want of a better word) remains the Palace establishment guided by its own views on what suits the Monarchy. Have they evolved - in which case the assertions of her full participation, and therefore proper workload, should be accepted more at face value - or is there enough ancillary evidence to show that there has actually been little change at all and her role will be constrained by more than just the inherent security precautions that come with royal status?

'Then there was an unquestioned acceptance that Diana chose the hymns..... Now there's a surprisingly pervasive belief (ill-founded?) that Catherine didn't really make any choices but only followed Palace expectations/instructions'

that is REALLY interesting.
do you think it's because we're more aware of the way power operates - ie someone might on the face of it be a VIP to whom people will bow but in practice they may be out of their depth and easily manipulated, so we are more cynical about someone being claimed to have made certain decisions?
or is it about cynicism towards the royals as a result of all the cover-ups when the various marriages were breaking up, which means we don't take anything we're told about them at face value any more?

I hope this is a sufficient lull in the thread for me to go back a bit to SGM's post: in which she said the following were unique to the RW: their guest list (not published in full, no evidence either way on whether the published versions gives a good reflection of what's going on); naming of guests (not unique - invitations from HMQ are always in this form eg garden parties) required clothing (no different from requiments at many high profile events) and service (standard CofE, no modifications).

I suppose I'd been hoping to inspire some debate in the unique aspects - the continuation of the narrative (though I realise only two posters were interested, but they've not continued) - especially given commentaries such as this.

Especially in counterpoint to the symbolism of the selection of the hymns between the Charles and the William wedding. Then there was an unquestioned acceptance that Diana chose the hymns (and just look at the choice! The weight if the expectation at that stage of the narrative! Or just echoing HMQ?). Now there's a surprisingly pervasive belief (ill-founded?) that Catherine didn't really make any choices but only followed Palace expectations/instructions: is this type of commentary a form of condemnation, or will it prove protective? In hymn terms, it distances her from the "English" choice at the Wales wedding should criticism come from the Scots. In wider terms, does it show a cannier way to introduce her to the potential pitfalls of public life? Would that be suitable training from experts to her, or just patronising?

They always had a FT nanny and her H did all the morning school runs etc.

I don't actually disagree with him, StewieGriffinsMom! I don't like her exH at all, but she was a really useless housewife

KatieMiddleton - her exH successfully argued in court that she had not contributed to his business success or raised their children, but rather had detracted from it!

What support you get in the US or UK depends entirely on what the working spouse can afford, despite lipservice being accorded the frugality and unpaid work of the SAHP in creating the home, raising the children. If you're divorcing someone who makes very little, then you will get very little. Different if course if your ex is in a high income bracket, but maybe more difficult to secure your rights.

I agree Straight2Extremes that the relative lack of elements such as affordable childcare in the UK and especially in the US (and the attitude of 'children are primarily the responsibility of the family from which that springs) make for a different approach.

If I got divorced (and tbh I couldn't afford to even if I did want to) I would expect a 50/50 split of all assets and then any child support arrangements are separate. We have both contributed similar lump sums of cash to our life together (from property/inheritance etc) but my dh has contributed more to the household finances while I have contributed more labour as childcarer.

Bonsoir, was your friend's contribution to the marriage not recognised? You don't say how old the two children are but surely the time spent caring for them so the husband can earn the money is worth some recognition? Did she not contribute to his success?

See the child support should always be there no matter the marital status by the non resident parent (if they are working) but I disagree that in the event of divorce they should just walk separate ways.

Because in marriage people make sacrifices, especially if children are invovled and those sacrifices can impact on the quality of life. Like being a SAHM for 5 years then having a divorce only to find you may have difficulty in the job market. And being a SAHP is a joint decision, why should only one suffer for it.

So I am for a split of assets earned during the marriage (things you got before marriage you should keep I feel) depending on the length of marriage.

But I know that France have a lot of childcare options which are also pretty cheap in comparison to UK so maybe they don't see that having a child should have major impact?

The UK and the US are very unusual in affording a great deal of protection for spouses after divorce. Most of the world considers that divorced spouses go their own separate ways and owe each other nothing.

A friend of mine recently divorced in Paris after 23 years of marriage and two children - 23 years of being a SAHM. She got awarded the equivalent of £12,000 to cover her costs for the first year - after that she is on her own. Oh, and about £200 per month child support.

In theory a man has obligation to his own child (not great at the moment but hopefully some improvement) but if a man and woman have chosen not to get married then I don't see why a either one of them needs to do anything for the other after a breakdown in their relationship.

That's why there should be a distinction in relationships some wish to share everything and make an active choice to do so others don't. And for those that don't then the only people that need protection is children.

I wonder why there is little or no legal protection for women and children without marriage. Surely that aspect of the law continues to reinforce the idea of the man being the central character in the family and the woman's status dependent on her legal relationship to a man?

wrt taking the past into consideration -- surely the position of unmarried women was just as precarious in its own way, without the element of being owned by someone else but with the added element of being despised, called an 'old maid' if you had nothing to do with men and running the risk of all sorts of abuse if you consorted with men, with no assurance of legal protection in the case of rape.

On the other hand, I don't understand why women would have a relationship and children with someone from whom they weren't certain they mightn't need legal protection!