Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

[DontdoitKatie]

This is one of the times when you realise how very lonely seeing things through a feminist lens can make you.

Patriarchy in all its glory.

Thank goodness this thread exists! Am slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned primogeniture in their analysis....for me, this is the most explicit part of what makes this royal wedding anti-women. Things such as the choir, the giving away of the bride (boak) etc are in other weddings, but primogeniture only really survives in the royal wedding.

For me, the one tiny piece of hope to cling on to is that they took a decade to getting round to getting married, and lived together, and are clearly no sort of arranged marriage. For the royals, that is a significant difference from the past. It also led to a classically bonkers letter to the Guardian from someone complaining about them living together "shamelessly" etc. I do quite like the idea that the sexual (im)morality of the state religion - lifelong monogamy with no divorce, virginity at marriage - is being made a mockery of by both its next apparent leader, Charles, and the one after that, William.

BTW, I think that this wedding is one where feminist analysis becomes more powerful by being linked to other analyses looking at other types of abuse of power that were on show, because royalty epitomises all of these abuses in one go. A small example: the invitation of lots of "monarchs" who have been kicked out of their own countries, plus a sprinkling of modern despots still in power who have blood on their hands.

Oh I missed Fou's fail here "what expensive piece of jewelry did she get him?"

Fou in case you hadn't noticed men have specifically designed society so that they reap the rewards of women's labour. Women do all the donkey work in the bottom rungs of society, including childbearing, for free or a pittance, and men award themselves large economic sums for paper shuffling at the top end. They even expect women to shell out their hard earned cash to support these men, such as when taxpayers had to pay for the bonuses of those incompetent bankers.

Sometimes men make concessions to women by offering to buy them with rings, and other treasures (as if the wealth men own wasn't originally stolen from women in the first place)

jugglingjo
I think any institution that supports the idea that a man in the sky is the creator of life, instead of women and nature, is misogynistic (and very womb-envying to boot)

I am an agnostic and have a great respect for female-friendly pagansim, which focuses on nature and women's unique connection to the universe.

Thanks for your friendly response Sakura !

And thank you for yours

slhilly, I'm finding your posts really interesting

Oohh, they've put it on discussions of the day !
How good is that ?
Thanks Catherine !

So, what do you think were the more equal and feminist friendly moments of the day ?
I think seeing Kate and Wills waving together from the coach was friendly and more equal, and one of my favourite bits.
Also the friendly, sisterly relationship between Kate and Pippa was good to see - and evident that Pippa was doing a great job organising things, though slightly behind the scenes compared to say the Archbishop with his fancy hat!
The image of Kate walking up an avenue of spring trees followed by her young attendants and sister could be quite pagan and woman friendly

Princess Michael of Kent's actual name is Marie. Did you know? Outrageous.

I'm confused by the whole Fergie thing. I didn't invite my auntie's ex husband to my wedding, even though both children of the marriage were in attendance. I wouldn't have dreamt of it. Have I done wrong?

I think the Fergie thing is weird in the context of who else was invited - that William and Kate either didn't know or barely knew. Normally at a wedding the bride and groom know everyone (or are at least related to those that they don't know that well!) so for me it seems strange that a relative (even one by marriage) isn't invited when so many other hangers on are.

But that has always been the nature of Royal Weddings - an exercise in international diplomacy rather than what the bride and groom may want!

Yes, SGM, was good to see Harry involved in looking after some of the children, and all waving from their coach. Also nice to see Prince Charles lifting up Camilla's granddaughter for a better view.
All signs of progress and a slight move in the feminist direction !
Amazing noblegiraffe that almost nobody has ever heard her called by her own name, Marie ! I saw that Carole Middleton was listed in official photos as Mrs Michael Middleton too. I think it's awful for women to loose their first names. Changing to a new surname or family name is one thing, loosing your first name is just ridiculous !
Women should say enough's enough !

I'm glad this thread is here.

I noticed that about Carole Middleton too, why wasn't her name used? I hate the Mrs blokesname surname thing. And am I wrong (might be) but doesn't their money come from her business?

I know it's the Daily Mail and therefore designed to provoke outrage, but in this article, I couldn't find any mention of what the men have to do. Do the men have to bow to each other in order of rank? Do men who marry female royals have higher or lesser rank depending on whether their wife is in the room?

The whole thing is incredibly anachronistic, but I want to know if it's also sexist.

Princess Michael's name is Princess Pushy. I thought everyone knew that.

This thread's very entertaining though a bit sketchy on CofE matters.

At least Victoria Beckham wasn't suddenly being referred to as Mrs David Beckham. Unlike Sophie Winkleman (I think she kept her maiden name on marriage) being referred to as Lady Frederick Windsor.

Did anyone else notice the poignancy of the shot they kept coming back to of a beautiful Kate next to William and then two nuns in different stages of life, as far from glamourous as possible with sensible shoes, scraped back hair and very little trace of femininity as we ordinarily understand it? Kate was glowing but the nuns had the expressions of blank resignation to their rejection of all the things of the world that kate and W represented visually.
It was like an advert...which life do you choose?Embrace the material or reject it? Look here are the consequences.I did feel sorry for the nuns and wondered how many nuns may regret rejecting the normal world with all its sensual delights, patriarchy, and other weaknesses?

It's a royal title issue. Sophie Winkleman doesn't have a title in her own right - she's not the daughter of an Earl or similar ( Lady Diana Spencer et al) so it's just a courtesy appendage.

Neither she nor Princess Michael seem too fussed.

Thank you Sybil!

Campion, I'm not saying that Sophie Winkleman should have been referred to as Lady Sophie Windsor, I'm saying that she should have been referred to as Sophie Winkleman. The name that she is well-known under - the name that she kept when she married her husband. Calling her Lady Frederick Windsor is like when they called Miriam Gonzalez Durantez 'Miriam Clegg'.

They don't have to refer to her by the title she has chosen not to use. They didn't refer to Lady Louise Windsor as Princess Louise as she technically is.

And the press used 'Princess Diana' when that wasn't actually her title to use, so it's not like there is a protocol which has to be followed in reporting.