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.

I'm not confused at all Bonsoir. I disagree with you though but that's often the case!

I know the thread's deviated from the title. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out - it's a description, not a complaint. And it's also been interesting to see the reaction.

Dittany - I have no idea what you're referring to in your last post. I haven't commented on funding of the Royal family. Just wondering why the specifically Royal aspects have been barely touched on.

I was interested in the posts about the need for a Royal narrative but it seems most people, bar two, here are not. Is that generally considered a lesser issue?

Can you just outline the specifically Royal aspects please meditrina? That might help with this issue.

Well, there are issues about the traditional CofE wedding and what it means. Then there's the gender-biased way weddings are reported. And, of course, there's the gossipy stuff. Then there's the fact that this wedding represents an alteration to our royal family, which could lead to yet another discussion of all things monarch-related.

Since William will eventually become head of the CofE, I reckon he more or less had to follow the traditional form (though they did adopt some modernisations iirc). It's not uncommon for a wedding to be affected by the couple's other circumstances; I shouldn't imagine he could have ignored that one. Similarly, the gulf in social status between the guests means there were complex issues of precedence. From my very cursory observation, I'd say they seem to have handled those pretty well.

Katie didn't just marry her boyfriend, she took on a job. That's an interesting discussion in itself - lots of women accept a job when they accept the proposal. Some men do, too.

What other forms of royal narrative would you like to see, meditrina?

By the way Dittany - I am a feminist just a more frivolous one, not so po-faced about it. Just mentioned Polly T because you will all have heard of her and I work with her sometimes. Not allowed to join your particular version of feminism because you want to dictate the narrow terms, but I take the Groucho Marx line on that.

May I request that you don't tell anyone else you consider yourself a feminist Lucky.

Dittany: I've answered that - the archetype was the bridesmaids thread (now deleted owing to the level of unkind interruption), and IMO all the principal Royal threads have had negative comments too. I asked you about examples of ones that didn't (as I may have missed something) but you have offered no examples in refutation.

Timewasting : I've already mentioned SybilBeddowes post much higher up the thread, and Skatergrrls earlier today (I was thinking specifically of her last paragraph). Garlicbutter: I think you make a good point about how this wedding (and also this marriage) may affect the course of the Monarchy - I see that as an important part of the narrative too.

StewieGriffithsMom: I posted in the hope of stimulating discussion on that uniquely Royal aspect that has been completely overlooked. Yes, I often add things to threads when I think there are important aspects that are not being covered. I have found the reaction here interesting in itself.

I can't see what it is about Skatergrrls post that is particularly different to the rest of the thread. Which of Sybil's posts please?
Can you use more words to make your point as well please, I think I'm missing something?

TimeWasting - were we discussing another subject you might not be so judgemental - you may request that but of course you are making big assumptions and getting them wrong so I will politely ignore your request.

Dittany - as you say any idiot can call herself a feminist. Well done.

Any idiot can call themselves a feminist these days

Ouch.

Lucky, I can only base my opinions on what I've read on this thread, and I think that anyone who knowingly and deliberately promised that they would obey their husband and justifies it now, is likely to misrepresent feminism.
Also, even my Dad could have suggested a better icon of feminism than Polly Toynbee.

I read that DM article this morning about Kate saying she's going to be a housewife from now on and frankly my blood ran cold about the fact that they are turning on her so soon.

They are phrasing things very carefully to put a negative spin on everything.

I quote:
'Despite a surge of public interest in the Royal Family following Friday?s wedding, Kate is refusing to conduct any public engagements without her husband for the foreseeable future.'

note REFUSING, as if everyone is asking her to and she's saying no - in fact we don't know who it is coming from.

'There are only two or three joint events pencilled in over the next couple of months and aides admit the new bride intends to spend most of her time with her husband on Anglesey.'

again, ADMIT, as if it is an embarrassing and bad thing, rather than perhaps a logical easing-in into her new role; the whole thing could have been spun instead as 'Queen supports Kate in gentle start in new job'.

they've written it so it is not too obvious, ie they have said all the 'it will be her only chance for a normal few months', but lower down the article than the bit that makes her sound stroppy and lazy. It is totally stirring.

I guess if her role is to be a symbol of national femininity that has to include getting criticised by the Daily Mail for every bloody thing she does

Oh - you are a rare select type of feminist who is immune from idiocy - how kind of you to set poor little me straight. Gosh! Maybe one day you might teach me how to think for myself if you ever master it. (Sorry 'mastering' anything must be off-limits for you.)

RE rudeness - I would expect nothing better from you. It's clear you allow yourself to be wound up by most aspects of life. I think I can just manage to feel a little bit sorry for you.

Would this be a good time to re-introduce my campaign for a Fixed-Term Renewable Commitment, previously floated in Relationships?

This could include a legal marriage in the UK, though not a religiously 'legal' one: the legally required statements say nothing about marriage being for life. It would require a binding contract between the partners, taking into account such things as asset-sharing, plans for children, division of labour, sex, fidelity, respect, etc, etc. The commitment would be renewable and renegotiable after a fixed term set by the couple. Divorce then becomes a matter of breach of contract, which is what it was originally supposed to be about.

William & Kate wouldn't have been able to do this anyway, I suppose. But I'm still very attached to the idea! Any takers?

Unlikely to be popular for most Garlic it feels to much like a business contract, although marriage now is a contract of sorts the business side takes a backseat to the romance of it all.