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. 