Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

Lucky, I can only base my opinions on what I've read on this thread, and I think that anyone who knowingly and deliberately promised that they would obey their husband and justifies it now, is likely to misrepresent feminism.
Also, even my Dad could have suggested a better icon of feminism than Polly Toynbee.

Any idiot can call themselves a feminist these days

Ouch.

TimeWasting - were we discussing another subject you might not be so judgemental - you may request that but of course you are making big assumptions and getting them wrong so I will politely ignore your request.

Dittany - as you say any idiot can call herself a feminist. Well done.

I can't see what it is about Skatergrrls post that is particularly different to the rest of the thread. Which of Sybil's posts please?
Can you use more words to make your point as well please, I think I'm missing something?

Dittany: I've answered that - the archetype was the bridesmaids thread (now deleted owing to the level of unkind interruption), and IMO all the principal Royal threads have had negative comments too. I asked you about examples of ones that didn't (as I may have missed something) but you have offered no examples in refutation.

Timewasting : I've already mentioned SybilBeddowes post much higher up the thread, and Skatergrrls earlier today (I was thinking specifically of her last paragraph). Garlicbutter: I think you make a good point about how this wedding (and also this marriage) may affect the course of the Monarchy - I see that as an important part of the narrative too.

StewieGriffithsMom: I posted in the hope of stimulating discussion on that uniquely Royal aspect that has been completely overlooked. Yes, I often add things to threads when I think there are important aspects that are not being covered. I have found the reaction here interesting in itself.

May I request that you don't tell anyone else you consider yourself a feminist Lucky.

By the way Dittany - I am a feminist just a more frivolous one, not so po-faced about it. Just mentioned Polly T because you will all have heard of her and I work with her sometimes. Not allowed to join your particular version of feminism because you want to dictate the narrow terms, but I take the Groucho Marx line on that.

Well, there are issues about the traditional CofE wedding and what it means. Then there's the gender-biased way weddings are reported. And, of course, there's the gossipy stuff. Then there's the fact that this wedding represents an alteration to our royal family, which could lead to yet another discussion of all things monarch-related.

Since William will eventually become head of the CofE, I reckon he more or less had to follow the traditional form (though they did adopt some modernisations iirc). It's not uncommon for a wedding to be affected by the couple's other circumstances; I shouldn't imagine he could have ignored that one. Similarly, the gulf in social status between the guests means there were complex issues of precedence. From my very cursory observation, I'd say they seem to have handled those pretty well.

Katie didn't just marry her boyfriend, she took on a job. That's an interesting discussion in itself - lots of women accept a job when they accept the proposal. Some men do, too.

What other forms of royal narrative would you like to see, meditrina?

Can you just outline the specifically Royal aspects please meditrina? That might help with this issue.

I know the thread's deviated from the title. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out - it's a description, not a complaint. And it's also been interesting to see the reaction.

Dittany - I have no idea what you're referring to in your last post. I haven't commented on funding of the Royal family. Just wondering why the specifically Royal aspects have been barely touched on.

I was interested in the posts about the need for a Royal narrative but it seems most people, bar two, here are not. Is that generally considered a lesser issue?

I'm not confused at all Bonsoir. I disagree with you though but that's often the case!

I don't agree one little bit that it is lame to work in the family business. I think you are confusing the setting of public examinations and job recruitment. They don't follow the same model, and there is absolutely no reason they should!

oops, sorry Christine!

Sybil - wasn't talking about Kate so much, more about Pippa. I actually agree that it would have been very difficult for Kate to work in a 'proper' job. I used to work with Cat Deeley's brother and that was bad enough for the hassle/sycophancy of some people wanting to become friends with him in the hope of meeting his sister :o

(aargh, why can't I write grammatically correct sentences any more?)

as soon as it became publicly known that she was dating Prince William she no longer had that option though Christine - even if she was working her socks off in another firm there would still be firstly, people saying she was getting preferential treatment because of the royal association, and secondly, have a risk that bosses would not take her seriously as an employee worth investing in because they would be expecting her to leave to get married. A bit like the way employers often think of women as less committed once they have children.

Her education will have equipped her to perform ALL her roles or 'jobs' to the best of her ability.

She's got herself a top job - is the way I see it. Her education has, so far, been put to good use.