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.

" "she has gone from being funded by her parents to being funded by the taxpayer via her marriage to William."

William has always been funded by his parents and the taxpayer - why are we singling Kate out?"

Fair point but but but buuuut . . . William's funding is because he is 2nd in line to the throne and I think disagreeing with that funding is a Royal vs Republican issue rather than a feminist one. It could certainly be argued that "Being Prince William" is a job in itself, but if you reasonably disagree with that, he does have a bona fide career as a soldier, he is a helicopter pilot doing a useful job. If he was living a Prince Andrew Bertie Wooster lifestyle there would be much more cause for criticism of him. Kate Middleton could have joined the forces after graduation too, but chose instead to work two days a week as a buyer for Whistles so she could be available to meet up with her boyfriend whenever he wanted her.

If William were a female heir to the throne I wonder if she would have gone into the forces? I do think there would have been no way her consort would have been someone who just dabbled in this and that and relied on his parents for a living... what a waster, would be the cry.

Dittany you've lifted a direct quote from me at 10.25. Just to respond we weren't specifically singling Kate out and excluding William. It was part of a wider discussion about whether her education was going to waste because she'd never had a proper job and how she has been treated as property as symbolised in the wedding service. If we include William he has also had a similarly expensive education but now works (and receives tax payer money).

Yeah, I guess you're right, Straight2 :( It pisses me off no end that the marriage contract actually overrides any structures the couple might want to put in place; I'd prefer it if there was official support for negotiated terms.

Well, there is if you live together with contracts, but currently you'd have to spend so much on fees to make the deal binding & enforceable, it'd put most people off!

Well in the UK I don't think contracts between married couples are actually legally binding which is why pre-nuptials are not enforced but a judge would take it under advisement in their decision.

I can see marriage contracts as you propose being open to a lot of abuse since you are negotiating every detail any minor deviation from it could result in instant divorce?

What do you mean by stolen??

"It's patriarchal to try and put relationships into a legal contract."

That's a ridiculous assertion. Do you think the vulnerable of this world are better served outside the rule of law?

Relationships don't have to be formalised by marriage (I'm not married). Modern marriage is not by definition patriarchal - but then, I very much doubt you know anything substantial about the legalities of relationships (or the legalities of anything very much), dittany.

Were not marriages also so that men could be made to "legally own" their own children, and thus be forced to provide for them when the child's mother has just given birth and is unable to?

IIRC if a woman is married to a man and has a baby she can put his name down on the baby's birth certificate as the father, and legally he IS the father, unless he can prove otherwise (which has only become possible in the last couple of years).

The marriage contract was initially a deed of ownership of the bride, yes. Now it's a legally-circumscribed relationship and does enforce (aupposedly) joint ownership of all assets.

When people form a partnership, there are inevitable issues of material property just as there are when forming a business partnership. I'd like to see that made more obvious, and I don't see why the State should prescribe the form it takes between a marrying couple.

On the emotional front, I don't find it unromantic to state one's relationship ideals formally and in public. I see that many people do find it, and the idea of those ideals froming a contract, repugnant. Which looks a bit odd, considering how much effort goes into discussing wedding vows.

Since you can divorce a spouse for any reason that you find impossible to live with, there's no difference in that respect - except the difference of clarity & honesty.

Bonsoir, the reason I wish there were an alternative form of legal recognition is that the 'divorce' between a cohabiting couple is fraught with confusion. Unless they did, in fact, set it up as a business partnership there's no legal framework to support the split.

Somebody clearly did do something, dittany, and the law was changed :)

There you go again, dittany, living in the past. Why are you so angry about past injustices against women that have been righted in law? Why do you read feminist texts and get angry about the situations they describe that are no more?

You are at least two generations behind the times.

x-posted, swc, thanks - So the 'somebody' was Mrs R, along with her lawyers and the Lords. Hurrah for them!

I'm not attacking you dittany - I'm pointing out (as garlicbutter also has) that you consistently take a "feminist" position that is wildly outdated given the law today. Why bother being so angry about something that is past? Why stir up sexist hatred in this way? It's a bit gratuitous (and very pointless). Focus on the future - it's more productive.