Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

This is reminding me of Mornington Crescent. 'I'm invoking the Edgware variation of 1972 so actually I think you'll find I can travel between Camden Town and Finchley Road without changing tubes'

Don't know why I've only just found this thread, but it's made very interesting reading :-)
I did have a lot of at the wording of the ceremony, but then remembered feeling similar at a friend's (C of E) wedding. The Church of Scotland minister who married dh and I was definitely a feminist!
The "small" things he insisted on were - My dad walked me down the aisle, but there when I got to the front, he stepped back, and I stood on my own for a bit before stepping up beside dh. There was no "who gives this woman?" bit. He would have preferred us to walk in one from each side of the church to meet in the middle, but I didn't want to disappoint my dad who was expecting the traditional role.
Under no circumstances would he allow a couple to be married in his church using the word "obey". We each promised the same - to love, honour and cherish.
DH also got a stern warning that after we had knelt for the blessing, under no circumstances was he to get to his feet before I got to mine! We had to stand simultaneously, as the imagery of me still kneeling while dh was standing was not to be condoned. I noticed that Kate was still kneeling at William's feet at that part of the ceremony .
None of these details were things I'd even have thought about at 21, but I'm very glad now that they were brought to my attention.

Interestingly, the same minister often argued that Jesus would have been considered very feminist in his own time: despite women's very lowly place in society in 30AD, many of the parables relate to women, and it was to women that Christ first revealed himself after the resurrection.
I don't think that Christianity has to be anti-women, although I completely agree that the patriarchy of the institution of the church is misogynist.

This reminds me of the time someone told me he didn't believe in feminists... I thought he was a bit of a prat.

Dittany - no wonder you're so well versed in patronising behaviour! The dictionary I used is the Oxford English Dictionary - can't link to it because it's an actual book here on my shelf.

And Christine - that's why it was discussed and explained. But don;t go getting drawn into a discussion about the wrong wedding. You'd better stick to one at a time.

It's good to know Victoria Beckham's shoes are more relevant in a 'feminist analysis' than the definition of the words used. But that's modern feminism it seems.

My grandmother didn't have obey in her vows and that was in the early 1950s.

I don't get the denying we are having a feminist discussion when we are having a feminist discussion. Or why anyone would come onto a discussion to post it doesn't exist. Weird.

I think most people leave 'obey' out of vows nowadays don't they? It seems a tad antediluvian. Whatever the other interpretations of the word might be, if your guests hear you say the word obey, it's probably a fair bet that they are hearing it as being obedient as that's what's generally meant by the word.

'Obey' wasn;t in our wedding vows and that was 11 years ago and a CofE service so not sure why there was a big fuss about Will and Kate not having it in theirs

Have to laugh at the comment pages up about women doing the hard work of childbearing....thats not a choice ...it's nature!!! My dh runs 2 companies and I choose to be a SAHM and look after our 3 kids while he works. In all honesty i can't say who has the toughest job as both are sooooo different and bring different stresses.....again nothing to do with men v women but what we have agreed works best for our family

As Meditrina said - what's the point of discussing one wedding - how can you really make any worthwhile point? That's why calling it an 'analysis' rather than just a 'gossip' under a pseudo-serious name is laughable.

ChristinedeP - oh yes - I'm not bothered by your impatience and still think the idea of a Feminist Analysis of the Royal Wedding is a joke. But if you can't see how you are deluding yourself I guess feminists aren't what they were. Also, anyone who posts is 'getting involved in the discussion'. Sorry but it's true. In the end it must be a discussion about weddings in general - total waste time to discuss a one-off.

'...do me a favour "A feminist analysis of the Royal Wedding"!!! This thread is just another chance to talk about the thing dressed up as a serious discussion. Quite delusional.'

Sorry but I don't understand that. What are you trying to say? That we are not discussing this from a feminist viewpoint? That there is nothing to discuss from a feminist perspective? Or perhaps that none of us exist and we are really not discussing anything at all?

What's you're angle because I'm lost

Most of the thread isn't an analysis of the Royal wedding though. It's dominated by considerations of marriage which pertain to all traditional ceremonies, royal or not. So it's not surprising that examples from other marriages come into it.

Thanks Meditrina! I am a bit obsessed with language and the interpretation of widely accepted meanings and what other ideas can be brought to them. Luckily the vicar - who is lovely bloke and a classical scholar is into that too - not just when it comes to religion - after all I'm not even baptised and he found writing (about my faith) 'To be confirmed' most amusing - clergy humour. You have given me a better means of expression - by using the word obey I was broadening the narrowed meaning - which is still perfectly acceptable in most dictionaries. Other people have their own way of doing it - that was part of mine. But often feel a 'feminist interpretation' is interesting in narrowing things to suit an argument. Not always but have felt that here.

Gobsmacked at the archaic language and the Who gives this woman? thing of the service. I haven't been to a CofE wedding and didn't pay much attention to any I've seen on TV before/ had bad reception. Is this typical?

although do you remember their wedding?

You came on here and started talking about how you wanted to be given away by your dad lucky. That's not 'getting involved in the discussion' as far as I can see.

Yes of course anyone can post on here, I'm not saying that you can't. But the title of the thread is 'Feminist analysis of the royal wedding' so forgive me for not having a whole lot of patience when you don't seem to be interested in discussing that subject at all.

it is sort of linked though cdep, by asking whether it is possible to have an equal relationship post this sort of ceremony? i'd argue that in lucky's case, yes, but in friday's case, no. for all of the other reasons discussed. (and am ignoring the desire to deliberately antaginise feminist mates)

unless, unless, oo, i don't know, is there a way that the d of c can redeem herself now? i feel a bit sorry for her - anyone on mn who says 'i can't work because dh and his family won't like it' i tell to work anyway. but anyone on mn that says 'dh supports me in everything i do and i want to stay at home and raise babies because i think it's vitally important for their future' i'd say that was ok too.

i think i'm uncomfortable because it's being held up as the shining ideal of womanhood - catching your prince, birthing his babies, and living happily ever after in pretty dresses. i don't actually have anything in particular against women who fall in love with men who are loaded per se. and he seems like a fairly ordinary chap, if you get rid of the entourage.

re posh and becks - interesting thought sgm... i still think she's only still allowed to be visible now because of who she married though, so whatever they call her is only defined in terms of who her husband is. (that's garbled bollocks, i mean if she wasn't married to david beckham she wouldn't have been invited at all, or have any column inches devoted to her or her designs) and she also provides us with a good role model, eh? dutiful baby birthing, and standing by your man even if he shags around. (notwithstanding monogamy discussion) i'd probably wear black and scowl too.

Lucky - I can't find your definition of obey - only dittany's. I can find your definition for the word "heed" though. But that isn't what you said. And you also wrote that the vicar said that you had promised to listen to his opinions. And unless he is redefining obey as that, it also isn't what you said in your vows.

jjkm - where I originally came into this is that I wear and ring and DH doesn't. This is because he has skinny fingers and big knuckles and cant get a ring that fits over his knuckle without it being too big. I chose to wear my mother's because it meant something to me. It wasn't suppoed to turn into a discussion of my marriage actually but was just an example of why sometimes apparently symbolic things might be purely practical. I haven't had a good look at William's fingers so not suggesting this was the case here - just saying things aren't always the way it seems. By the way DH wants to wear a ring too but looked at spring loaded ones and they were crap. So he had a watch instead.

Christine: presumably she's on this thread as it's on an open Internet forum, and she wanted to post some alternate interpretations of the symbolism of marriage. Adding further examples to a discussion is also normal.

It's easy to be seen as intolerant if you attack the poster, not the substance of the post, and that would be unfortunate and I' m sure it wasn't your intention.

It would however be more interesting to look how language change can actually hinder interpretation. The narrowing of the word "to obey" (to omit the "heeding" version) is an interesting example - especially as the trade off seems to have been "share" for "endow" - a significantly worse deal in terms of property.

ChristinedePizan. What's the difference you have no idea who I am - and I'd guess you're no more closely involved with the total strangers whose wedding you'd rather discuss. I was answering other posters on here who clearly have taken an interest in my wedding. That's the way threads go sometimes. And do me a favour "A feminist analysis of the Royal Wedding"!!! This thread is just another chance to talk about the thing dressed up as a serious discussion. Quite delusional.

jjkim, the ring is a symbolic shackle. I'm not making that up, it really is. So, given that we're wedded (heh) to the tradition, it's more 'equalist' for both spouses to wear one.

It is true that some people find it very irritating to wear jewellery; given that William doesn't wear any rings, I'll buy that one.

I am so not getting any further into this thread, though!