Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

Somebody clearly did do something, dittany, and the law was changed :)

Bonsoir, the reason I wish there were an alternative form of legal recognition is that the 'divorce' between a cohabiting couple is fraught with confusion. Unless they did, in fact, set it up as a business partnership there's no legal framework to support the split.

The marriage contract was initially a deed of ownership of the bride, yes. Now it's a legally-circumscribed relationship and does enforce (aupposedly) joint ownership of all assets.

When people form a partnership, there are inevitable issues of material property just as there are when forming a business partnership. I'd like to see that made more obvious, and I don't see why the State should prescribe the form it takes between a marrying couple.

On the emotional front, I don't find it unromantic to state one's relationship ideals formally and in public. I see that many people do find it, and the idea of those ideals froming a contract, repugnant. Which looks a bit odd, considering how much effort goes into discussing wedding vows.

Since you can divorce a spouse for any reason that you find impossible to live with, there's no difference in that respect - except the difference of clarity & honesty.

Were not marriages also so that men could be made to "legally own" their own children, and thus be forced to provide for them when the child's mother has just given birth and is unable to?

IIRC if a woman is married to a man and has a baby she can put his name down on the baby's birth certificate as the father, and legally he IS the father, unless he can prove otherwise (which has only become possible in the last couple of years).

Relationships don't have to be formalised by marriage (I'm not married). Modern marriage is not by definition patriarchal - but then, I very much doubt you know anything substantial about the legalities of relationships (or the legalities of anything very much), dittany.

"It's patriarchal to try and put relationships into a legal contract."

That's a ridiculous assertion. Do you think the vulnerable of this world are better served outside the rule of law?

What do you mean by stolen??

Well in the UK I don't think contracts between married couples are actually legally binding which is why pre-nuptials are not enforced but a judge would take it under advisement in their decision.

I can see marriage contracts as you propose being open to a lot of abuse since you are negotiating every detail any minor deviation from it could result in instant divorce?

Yeah, I guess you're right, Straight2 :( It pisses me off no end that the marriage contract actually overrides any structures the couple might want to put in place; I'd prefer it if there was official support for negotiated terms.

Well, there is if you live together with contracts, but currently you'd have to spend so much on fees to make the deal binding & enforceable, it'd put most people off!

Dittany you've lifted a direct quote from me at 10.25. Just to respond we weren't specifically singling Kate out and excluding William. It was part of a wider discussion about whether her education was going to waste because she'd never had a proper job and how she has been treated as property as symbolised in the wedding service. If we include William he has also had a similarly expensive education but now works (and receives tax payer money).

" "she has gone from being funded by her parents to being funded by the taxpayer via her marriage to William."

William has always been funded by his parents and the taxpayer - why are we singling Kate out?"

Fair point but but but buuuut . . . William's funding is because he is 2nd in line to the throne and I think disagreeing with that funding is a Royal vs Republican issue rather than a feminist one. It could certainly be argued that "Being Prince William" is a job in itself, but if you reasonably disagree with that, he does have a bona fide career as a soldier, he is a helicopter pilot doing a useful job. If he was living a Prince Andrew Bertie Wooster lifestyle there would be much more cause for criticism of him. Kate Middleton could have joined the forces after graduation too, but chose instead to work two days a week as a buyer for Whistles so she could be available to meet up with her boyfriend whenever he wanted her.

If William were a female heir to the throne I wonder if she would have gone into the forces? I do think there would have been no way her consort would have been someone who just dabbled in this and that and relied on his parents for a living... what a waster, would be the cry.

Unlikely to be popular for most Garlic it feels to much like a business contract, although marriage now is a contract of sorts the business side takes a backseat to the romance of it all.

Would this be a good time to re-introduce my campaign for a Fixed-Term Renewable Commitment, previously floated in Relationships?

This could include a legal marriage in the UK, though not a religiously 'legal' one: the legally required statements say nothing about marriage being for life. It would require a binding contract between the partners, taking into account such things as asset-sharing, plans for children, division of labour, sex, fidelity, respect, etc, etc. The commitment would be renewable and renegotiable after a fixed term set by the couple. Divorce then becomes a matter of breach of contract, which is what it was originally supposed to be about.

William & Kate wouldn't have been able to do this anyway, I suppose. But I'm still very attached to the idea! Any takers?

Oh - you are a rare select type of feminist who is immune from idiocy - how kind of you to set poor little me straight. Gosh! Maybe one day you might teach me how to think for myself if you ever master it. (Sorry 'mastering' anything must be off-limits for you.)

RE rudeness - I would expect nothing better from you. It's clear you allow yourself to be wound up by most aspects of life. I think I can just manage to feel a little bit sorry for you.

I read that DM article this morning about Kate saying she's going to be a housewife from now on and frankly my blood ran cold about the fact that they are turning on her so soon.

They are phrasing things very carefully to put a negative spin on everything.

I quote:
'Despite a surge of public interest in the Royal Family following Friday?s wedding, Kate is refusing to conduct any public engagements without her husband for the foreseeable future.'

note REFUSING, as if everyone is asking her to and she's saying no - in fact we don't know who it is coming from.

'There are only two or three joint events pencilled in over the next couple of months and aides admit the new bride intends to spend most of her time with her husband on Anglesey.'

again, ADMIT, as if it is an embarrassing and bad thing, rather than perhaps a logical easing-in into her new role; the whole thing could have been spun instead as 'Queen supports Kate in gentle start in new job'.

they've written it so it is not too obvious, ie they have said all the 'it will be her only chance for a normal few months', but lower down the article than the bit that makes her sound stroppy and lazy. It is totally stirring.

I guess if her role is to be a symbol of national femininity that has to include getting criticised by the Daily Mail for every bloody thing she does