Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

593 replies

DontdoitKatie · 29/04/2011 11:08

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.

OP posts:
WhatWillSantaBring · 03/05/2011 06:45

On the Fergie non-invite thing, I rather think that was more to do with her selling access to the royal family than just your typical not-inviting-the-ex-partner thing. Interestingly, she is the one female member of the royal family who is consistently referred to by her "maiden" name!

Apologies if I missed it (many pages to catch up on, limited time) but tue Government is starting the process of scrapping male primogeniture- I read that it will be much harder to achieve from a constitutional law perpective if this is delayed till after the birth of a child to Kate and Will.

Another interesting point that, to me, counters the patriarchy argument, is that a female who inherits the throne rules by herself, with her husband just as regent, whereas a male who inherits is crowned with his wife, who rules with him as consort. In this isolated context, the balance is weighted towards women, surely?

meditrina · 03/05/2011 06:57

Oh I agree - it's a unique thread! It's just a pity it isn't doing what it said in the title.

Dittany: it's interesting that you know that those who derailled other threads aren't feminists. Or is there a special MN clique/claque definition? And that you do not consider the identical points to those in this thread elsewhere to be a feminist analysis. Do you rate posts/posters elsewhere on some feminist scale? Or is it just that if it's not in this forum it can't be? (PS: still waiting for answer about any RW thread that remained uncritical).

Santa: ISWYM, but your terminology is a bit off: a queen regnant has a prince consort , but a king (regnant) has a queen consort. Neither spouse "rules". And, as prince consorts sometimes complain, they're the only men who can't give their surname to their children.

brandnewme · 03/05/2011 07:08

Totally agree with Bonsoir bleeding and Whatwill

StewieGriffinsMom · 03/05/2011 07:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BalloonSlayer · 03/05/2011 08:00

But surely it was completely appropriate in this case for Michael Middleton to "give" his daughter to Prince William. She is a 29 year old graduate with a degree from a top university but for the past seven years her parents have totally funded her ambition to marry a prince. (Unless you count the untold riches the two-day-a-week job she once had contributed to her central London flat and party lifestyle.)

I dare say Mr Middleton's chequebook breathed a sigh of relief, even if he was feeling rather emotional. Now William can finance her. She certainly has never financed herself. And at 29, with her abilities and education, that is not far off a disgrace. She wouldn't dare complain about being treated as a possession, for she has always behaved like one.

StewieGriffinsMom · 03/05/2011 08:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChristinedePizan · 03/05/2011 08:19

None of their children really have proper jobs though do they? They all work for the family business.

BalloonSlayer · 03/05/2011 08:27

Well yes, but shouldn't feminism be about women taking responsibility for their own decisions, so is blaming the patriarchy for one woman's rather shallow decision rather than her own weakness really the way to go?

I am way out of my depth with feminist arguments, and am about to slink out before I make an utter pair of buttocks of myself.

I feel guilty calling Kate's decision shallow. Maybe she has been desperately in love with him for himself for the last seven years. William is supposed to be a nice bloke, even if he did dump her Hmm because he thought he could have more fun elsewhere. And he has a nice body. But without the money and the title, would all that be enough to make up for the dysfunctional in-laws, the dramatically receding hair, the dangerous, unsociable job, the worrying fixation with the dead, beautiful mother, the alarming fondness for beige v-neck jumpers?

StewieGriffinsMom · 03/05/2011 08:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SybilBeddows · 03/05/2011 09:02

they will have seen being queen-in-waiting as a job, I expect. Which it is in a way (eg it brings certain responsibilities which can be fulfilled well or badly), albeit one with extremely bizarre terms of employment and remuneration.

I bet you anything she will be talking in terms of her 'new job'.

(just a thought, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you)

AyeRobot · 03/05/2011 09:07

The Backlash has started

TimeWasting · 03/05/2011 09:09

Bonsoir, I can't see anything mature about taking things at face value. I suppose it makes life easier though.

KatieMiddleton · 03/05/2011 09:27

Can I just say I am really enjoying the idea that any thread of a critical nature where feminists are posting is feminist regardless of what is actually being said? It's so... sixth-form Smile

Any hoo back to the interesting points being raised. It is sad that all the education the bride has had has gone to waste and that her only ambition appears to have been marriage. BalloonSlayer is nearly right: she has gone from being funded by her parents to being funded by the taxpayer via her marriage to William.

Almost as an aside can we leave off William's looks please? It's not fair to judge a woman's worth based on how she looks so neither is it fair to judge a man's. Shocking dress sense is fair game (that's about a person's judgement) but baldness and other things that can't be helped aren't fair. I am also speaking as a woman who did not marry her dh for his looks. Or even his money as one bastard suggested but for the personality and nature of the person.

Animation · 03/05/2011 09:52

I don't agree that all her education has gone to waste.

She has gained valuable life skills and social skills that will help to make her a great diplomat representing the country, a good parent, and ability to sustain long healthy relationships, and enjoy life really.

She doesn't earn a salary though - real money in the bank - I assume that's what is meant by education gone to waste.

BalloonSlayer · 03/05/2011 09:58

You don't know that yet, Animation.

All you know is that she has - finally, after seven years - passed the interview for that particular job. She might turn out to be crap at it, although I suspect she won't.

(and KatieMiddleton yes sorry for joking about the bald patch, you are quite right)

Bonsoir · 03/05/2011 09:59

Her education will stand her in excellent stead for the role she has accepted as wife of the heir-in-waiting (and, probably, King one day in the future). Just because Kate Middleton has taken on an unusual job doesn't mean it isn't a proper job. And as for those who think that it is not a proper job to work in the family business - WTF???

ChristinedePizan · 03/05/2011 10:08

I think it's a bit lame to go to work in the family business without going and standing on your own two feet for a bit Bonsoir. I'd want to do it for my own self-respect - to know that I could get that £50k or whatever job by competing on a level playing field with other candidates, rather than suspecting I was head of events purely because I'm the daughter. Makes for a hideous corporate culture if children who are less competent get promoted over and above the other employees (I used to work for a very large international company where that happened and it just didn't work).

Having said all that I've just looked at Pippa's wiki page and she did have a job at another company before going to her parents' one so perhaps they get their jobs on merit.

KatieMiddleton · 03/05/2011 10:11

You are quite right about the beige v-neck jumpers BS Grin

Animation · 03/05/2011 10:13

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.

SybilBeddows · 03/05/2011 10:15

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.

SybilBeddows · 03/05/2011 10:16

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

ChristinedePizan · 03/05/2011 10:19

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

SybilBeddows · 03/05/2011 10:20

oops, sorry Christine!

Bonsoir · 03/05/2011 10:24

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!

dittany · 03/05/2011 10:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread