Bad feminist :(

Father and son horses were the outriders - typical men, eh, trying to steal the show!

Thanks. I wouldn't have found that story.

People are not debating what Amal Clooney was wearing. One poster has singled Amal Clooney for nasty and unjustified comments.

Everyone at the wedding would have put an effort into what they were wearing. I didn't see any indication that Amal was "lowering herself" or that she was behaving any differently from any of the other guests.

Are people really debating what Amal wore? That is depressing. She looked and great. Do people want her to turn up wearing a black puffed up plastic bag with bucket for a hat and sun glasses?

Alteratively, maybe Amal just likes a nice yellow frock and, in her line of work, doesn't get much opportunity to wear one?

She is married to Clooney, and they go to all the Hollywood events.

Besides, you missed the point, did I mention the frock? That was not what I was upset about, it was her mannerisms of extreme femininity that concerned me. Very sad to see that an intelligent woman has to lower herself into being a decorative object.

Princess Anne managed to throw on a frock and not behave like that.

Father and son horses were the outriders - typical men, eh, trying to steal the show!

@Rufustheyawningreindeer I guess unravelling it from imperialism really with all its implications. I didn't mean to sound judgy and was genuine when I said I wasn't. Reflecting on my own surprise...for me being pretty gender neutral and rejecting femininity means not bothering about clothing much at all but actually that is just a handy bi product, since I have no time to think about my appearance. So maybe can't be arsed about my appearance or that of others is actually primary and rejecting femininity is secondary!

The person who had the most difficult job on the day must have been the left outrider in the procession by the Household Cavalry whose horse was trying to bolt all the way back from the church.

Oh my god yes! He will have needed a stiff drink after. I was on tenterhooks watching him, I thought he was amazing. DH and I were discussing what would the protocol be if the rider thought he just HAD to get ahead and let the horse go a bit. Poor bloke. I breathed a sigh of relief when they got through the gates to the private park and away from the crowds!

I didn’t watch it, I haven’t seen any highlights and I haven’t looked on the Internet. I’m not remotely interested in the royal family or anything they do, and the feeling is mutual as far as I’m aware.

From Meghan's page on the Royal Family website...makes a refreshing change for someone in the public to admit to being a feminist. I'm guessing that if she is one, the op can be one too.

I went to a royal wedding party. I don't see it as damaging my feminist credentials. Feminists are perfectly able to watch and consider each aspect critically and enjoy the spectacle, the art, the music, the pomp and ceremony, and even shed a tear at the newness of early relationships and the hope entwined in the public statement of togetherness. I thought it was interesting that they removed obey. There was no giving away. I also noticed that the bish changed the words 'let no man cast asunder' to remove 'man'. I appreciate the careful thought process that had obviously gone into the planning. It was the first time I have heard the alternate wording used in a service, and I thought it was a very definitive moment. It's interesting to watch traditions change over time.
Having served for 16 years and come across both Wales's in professional contexts, I can't get too angsty about the ceremonial aspects of such things - I had a military wedding myself (notable difference - our honour guard did carry swords, so again a notable and definitive decision that Harry's party would not) and enjoy the tradition as an art form. I can blather for hours about misogyny in the military, but it was also interesting to see the females carrying their rifles etc, instead of shiny batons
I'm happy to fight anyone who tries to snaffle my membership card.

If you are a woman you have to prove what kind of woman you are all the time. If you are a man mostly you are expected to prove you aren’t a woman (gay).

Yes, at some point ‘being interested in clothes’ became a ‘pink brain’ thing. So now women are afraid to be interested in clothes because of the political implications of it.

Clothes are an art form. Why should women not be interested in clothes?

Both sexes have used clothing as an art form throughout human history. I love the history of clothes, men and women's. It's more interesting than the history of killing each other, that's for sure.

I enjoyed it. Especially watching all the high church types going into shock during the Episcopal Bishop giving it some right welly.

The vows were good, totally equal, as was the exchanging of rings. I like seeing people happy.

I'll get my dungarees on and wait for the knock at the door. Under his eye.

To exist as a female involves difficult negotiation of everything all the time. It is very difficult to stop feeling responsible for all of the political implications of every individual pleasure, thought, choice etc etc etc.

I'm really intrigued and surprised reading this thread. I hadn't expected many in this forum to take an interest in clothes or enjoy the Britishness of the event. Not judging. It's nice. I guess clothes are an art form really aren't they

Clothes are an art form. Why should women not be interested in clothes?

So far as pomp and circumstance - the British are very, very good at it. I have seen one Trooping the Colour from a prime (not open to the public) viewpoint and it was wonderful to watch. I was very impressed.

The person who had the most difficult job on the day must have been the left outrider in the procession by the Household Cavalry whose horse was trying to bolt all the way back from the church.

Yes, you have seen the light.

crikey, I even love the last night of the proms.

I get the frocks bit sarah (though thats my interest as well)

But the British bit?

Dont get why you thought posters on this forum wouldn't enjoy the 'britishness'

Again not having a pop or judging...just being nosy

I'm really intrigued and surprised reading this thread. I hadn't expected many in this forum to take an interest in clothes or enjoy the Britishness of the event. Not judging. It's nice. I guess clothes are an art form really aren't they. I took a little glance at the main dress myself and paused over Harry's decision to be bearded for this event. It didn't occur to me to think to look at anyone else's clothes. None of it makes anyone a 'bad feminist' obvs

I loved it and I normally loathe and despise weddings. It was just so beautiful and happy in every way. As a director I appreciated it as a performance as well. The vows segueing into 'The Lord Bless You and Keep You' had me sobbing. The cellist, American Bishop and gospel choir had me welling up as well. Normally at weddings I'm counting the minutes till it's over but this one was amazing.

One interesting line from her vow was, "...."to protect him" this was not in Harry's.

I will renew my feminist card next week when all of this has completely died down.

Just finished fast forwarding it all. Some fantastic frocks. The other cast members of Suits were gorgeous; as was unamed person in a black and orange dress with fabulous orange hat and 2 minor royals in 1950s style dresses (one navy, 1 cream)

Zara Philip's maternity dress and coat were lovely too

I agree! Though Mike Tindall went and got a whole new nose for the occasion!

I'm a self-proclaimed Bad Feminist and anti-Royalist who went to a Royal Wedding party, shed a tear when MM arrived at the church and has spent more time than I should really discussing her dress.

Off to the Dworkin Camp for me, I guess